Fujifilm X-H1 Review

The Fujifilm X-H1 is the company's range-topping APS-C camera and its most video-capable camera to date. It's based around the same 24MP sensor as the X-T2 but adds in-body image stabilization as well as a more comprehensive set of video options.

The X-H1 looks like a fractionally larger X-T2 but with the sloped viewfinder 'prism' and top-panel LCD that hint at the styling of the GFX 50S. Fujifilm has also clearly been listening to critics of the X-T series and have made the camera's grip and buttons significantly larger, particularly the AE-L and newly-added AF-On buttons.

Key specifications

24MP X-Trans APS-C sensor

5-axis in-body image stabilization (rated at 5EV)*

3.69M-dot OLED viewfinder

Touch sensitive rear LCD with two-axis tilt

DCI and UHD 4K capture at up to 200 Mbps

Slow motion 1080 (from 120 and 100 fps)

Internal F-Log capture

24-bit audio capture

Eterna/Cinema Film Simulation mode

Timecode

Reduced blackout in continuous shooting

Twin UHS-II-compatible card slots

Anti-flicker shooting mode

Wi-Fi with Bluetooth for constant connection

The company says it's made further improvements to its AF system and says the new camera will be able to focus in lower light and with smaller apertures.

Despite being based around the same sensor and processor, the X-H1 promises significantly improved video performance, with the range of shooting options extended to include DCI as well as UHD 4K shooting, bitrates up to 200 Mbps and the ability to record F-Log footage internally.

Other additions include the movie style 'Eterna' Film Simulation and an anti-flicker option for shooting under artificial lights.

Interestingly, although rated at 5EV, Fujifilm says the stabilization can hit 5.5EV of effectiveness if paired with non-IS lenses. The explanation for this is that the unstabilized lenses tend to be primes and are generally relatively wide focal lengths, both of which mean they're more likely to project a larger image circle than the sensor requires. This gives the sensor more room to move around, providing greater stabilization.

Enhanced video

The X-T2 is already a very credible video performer: offering good levels of detail capture and Log output over HDMI if needed. The X-H1 takes this a step further. In addition to being able to shoot UHD 4K at up to 30p it can also shoot the wider aspect ratio DCI 4K format at 23.98 and 24p. Enhanced compression options allow capture at up to 200 Mbps and it can also capture F-Log footage internally.

Like the X-T2, the H1 uses a 1.17x crop region of its sensor to capture its UHD and DCI 4K video. This means using roughly 1.4x more pixels than necessary, in each dimension, to produce its UHD footage. This oversampling leads to higher levels of detail capture than would be possible by simply using a 3840 x 2160 region. If the X-T2 is anything to go by, it should look good and have pretty well-controlled rolling shutter.

It seems most of the camera's additional size relates to the addition of the stabilization unit, but thermal management has also been improved, allowing the camera to shoot 4K for 15 minutes, rather than the 10 of the X-T2. However, as with the X-T2, there's an optional battery grip that lets the camera cycle between drawing power from each of three batteries. Presumably this avoids too much heat building up in the same place, since it extends the camera's 4K shooting duration out to the traditional 29 minutes, 59 seconds stipulated by import duty regulations.

On top of this comes the ability for the camera to retain a raft of settings separately for stills and video. This means you don't have to significantly reconfigure the camera every time you switch from stills to video shooting or back.

Parameters treated independently for movie shooting

Film Simulation

Dynamic Range mode

White Balance

Highlight Tone

Shadow Tone

Color (saturation)

Sharpness (sharpening)

Noise reduction

Peripheral light correction (vignetting )

Focus area

Focus mode

AF-C Custom Settings

Pre-AF

Face/Eye Detection

MF Assist

Focus Check

The obvious things that can't be set independently for stills and movie shooting are the exposure settings, since these are primarily defined by dedicated control dials. If you plan to swap back and forth between stills and video shooting, the camera's new 'Movie Silent Control' mode is one way around this.

Movie Silent Control disables the aperture ring, shutter speed dial and ISO dial, passing control to a touchscreen, joystick and four-way controller-based interface. This means discrete stills and video settings can be maintained, since the dedicated control points no longer have any affect in video mode.

However you choose to control exposure in movie mode, you'll quickly find that the X-H1 offers shutter speeds equivalent to 360, 180 and 90 degree shutter angles for 24, 30 and 60p video capture, with the options for 1/24th, 1/48th, 1/96th, 120th and 1/240th becoming available.

Like its sibling, the X-H1 offers a series of focus peaking options (color and intensity) but no zebra warnings for setting exposure, beyond the 'Live View Highlight Warning' option that indicates an unspecified and unspecifiable brightness.

The X-H1 also brings Fujifilm's DR modes to movie capture for the first time, allowing you to capture more highlight information, if you can tolerate higher ISO settings. Meanwhile the 'Eterna/Cinema' Film simulation is designed to give 'soft,' low-saturation footage with low contrast but distinct shadows. Fujifilm says it can be used as an end-point in itself or to give yourself a degree of latitude for color grading.

Users of Fujifilm's MK lenses (launched in X-mount alongside the X-H1) will appreciate the ability to view aperture as T-stops, rather than F-numbers. It's unclear at this point whether this option will be available with adapted and third-party lenses identified this way.

The X-H1 takes this further with a 'Dynamic Range Priority' mode. This uses the existing DR modes in combination with the camera's ability to adjust the Highlight and Shadow aspects of its tone curves. There are four settings: Weak, Strong, Auto and Off. The 'Weak' setting is DR200% mode with highlights and shadows softened by 1 step (since it's based on DR200%, is only available from ISO 400 upwards), while 'Strong' is DR400% with Highlights and Shadows set to -2. Strong is only available from ISO 800 or higher.

New shutter mechanism

Along with in-body stabilization, the X-H1 gains a new, quieter shutter mechanism. In addition to being quieter, it also allows the camera to offer Electronic First Curtain (EFC) shutter mode. In this mode the sensor being activated starts the exposure but a physical shutter is still used to end it, so that you significantly reduce the risk of shutter shock without increasing the risk of rolling shutter.

Various combinations of EFC, mechanical and fully electronic shutter are available, to allow the use of each mode for the shutter speeds where it gives its greatest advantage.

Compared with its peers

The X-H1 is the latest high-end crop sensor camera to offer both stills and video shooting but each one provides a different set of features:

Fujifilm X-H1

Fujifilm X-T2

Sony a6500

Panasonic GH5

US MSRP(body only)

$1900

$1600

$1400

$2000

Pixel count

24MP

24MP

24MP

20MP

Sensor size

APS-C

APS-C

APS-C

Four Thirds

Image Stablization

5-axis, 5.5EV

Lens only

5-axis, 5EV

5-axis, 5EV

Maximum shooting rate

14 fps with e-shutter, 8 fps mechanical (11 with grip)

14 fps with e-shutter, 8 fps mechanical (11 with grip)

11 fps

9 fps (11 with S-AF)

AF Joystick?

8-way

8-way

No

4-way

Touchscreen

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Screen articulation

Two-axis tilt

Two-axis tilt

Tilt

Fully articulated

EVF

3.69M dots

2.36M dots

2.36M dots

3.69M dots

Viewfinder magnification

0.75x

0.77x

0.70x

0.76x

Video Bit depth

8

8

8

10

Max bitrate (Mbps)

200

100

100

400 (150 in 8-bit mode

Mic / Headphone sockets?

Yes / On VPB-XH1 accessory grip

Yes / On VPB-XT2 accessory grip

Yes / No

Yes / Yes

Log capture?

Yes

HDMI out only

Yes

HLG (V-Log L Via paid upgrade)

HDMI

Micro

Micro

Micro

Full size

USB

3.0 Micro Type B

3.0 Micro Type B

2.0 Micro Type B

3.1 Type C

Shots per charge (CIPA rating)

310

340

310

410

Weight (with card and battery)

673g

507g

453g

725g

Pricing and availability

The X-H1 is available with an MSRP of $1899 body only and $2199 bundled with the VPB-XH1 vertical grip.

*Fujifilm says the camera will give up to 5.5EV of stabilization when paired with non-stabilized XF lenses. As with all CIPA ratings, the performance is likely to be lower with very wide or long lenses.

This is not a compact mirrorless, more like a dslr type of body. I hope Nikon first FX toy mirrorless is the same size of the D850 with a lot of goodies to shoot with my 500G..Oh yes!!!The picture of that guy, it is trying to tell us just that.

The front element of lens will likely be the same in order to capture the same level of light available. For crop sensors, the lenses get smaller, but not much comparing to full frame sensor bodies. If image stability is incorporated, the lens becomes larger but not by much. However, Canon and Nikon employed is diffractive optics that reduce the size and weight, but at the expense of cost! Nikon makes a 300 mm f/4 P lens that costs over $2K and Canon offers one 400 mm f/4 DO IS that costs $6K.

Mirrorless bodies require more battery power of the EVFs. A single Fuji battery pack provides about 300 shots, whereas DSLRs provide more than 1,000 with the optical viewfinders.

So it is all about trade-off. It is unlikely there will be significant size reduction. Even Sony stopped advertising "smaller and lighter". Their lenses are similar size as Canon and Nikon.

One aspect I practically never see mentioned with the Fuji-retro-styling is how the retro-controls impact on ergonomics. If one wants the retro-look and -handling, of course, Fuji cameras fit the bill and its great that the so-inclined get this option.

For those unfamiliar with the difference between the old-school Fuji dials and modern, so-called "soft dials" a discussion of the trade-offs would be useful.

I see more advantages for the soft dial approach then for the old-school approach (even when old-school dials include "A" positions) but people disagree on which trade-off are more important to them, so a general discussion would be nice.

I won't get into all the reasons why I think this is an inaccurate & poorly considered review, but a lot reviewers *completely miss* one of the principal reasons the X-H1 is larger & stronger than the X-T2: Fujifilm stated in 2017 that making a 200mm f/2.0 lens would “require an entirely new camera body”; Fuji increased the strength of the frame with a notably stronger & stiffer frame w/ considerable reinforcement in the frame & steel ribs for stiffening at the lens mount for mounting long, fast prime telephotos & MK Cine lenses. The stiffness required can't be overstated, as the new long, heavy primes will exert a lot of force (load) on the lens mount. Here's some data: the X-H1 is only *5%* larger in 2 of 3 dimensions, & 10% larger at minimal depth, to fit the IBIS. Its ~170 g heavier, & but weighs *less* than an X-T2 w/ a RRS L-plate. Does this matter in the real world? No. An X-H1 is still considerably smaller and lighter than a Nikon D500, its main APS-C DSLR competitor.

At a given point it is not the camera that support the lens, but the lens that support the camera. Such heavy lenses also have their own tripod socket.

When using long and heavy lenses, you don't hold the lens with the camera grip. Then everything will be way out of balance. You keep your left hand under the lens, and everything will balance beautifully, no matter small or large camera body, no matter if you use an extra grip or not.

For very large lenses, yes, the lens supports the camera, but there is a whole list of intermediate lenses that are not big enough to support the camera, but still pretty large (16-55 f2.8, 90mm f2, etc). At some point, the 5~10% difference in size with the X-T2 is not really significant, given the larger grip and additional size for the manual control. At least it gives people a choice.

since i dont have an interest in nikon bodies , i will retask my nikon love in lenses , and ive got a good amount of ais and afd that i use on my fuji xpro2 and pen f and speedboosters for both [ hollow adapters too to double effective fl [100mm is 150mm on a hollow adapter ]

If it's not a value proposition for you at that price, there are lots of other $2000 options available to you, including a M4/3 camera that costs $100 more. No one is twisting anyone's arm to buy this camera.

Yes expensive, but when I count in that in each and every shot with Sony I have to "optimize" the ok-ish, but not great color and yet struggle to get near the stunning color a Fuji outputs (in Jpeg and Raw) effortlessly in each and every shot, it is not expensive. Because getting ready pictures in only a few clicks as opposed to intense editing is a huge time saver. After 10.000 shots and more it starts to save you weeks of lifetime.

A comment about price being "beyond absurd" invariably means the writer:1. Cannot afford it.2. owns a different brand .3. Does not understand or care about marketing, product placement4. Thinks the comment is clever, especially if it relates to Leica or, to a lesser degree, anything related to medium format.

Speaking as a former Fuji owner (X-Pro1, 23mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4. M adapter) I would never buy another BRAND NEW Fuji product again. In the 2 years I owned the camera it depreciated to the point of almost being worthless. Fuji makes great cameras, but if you like them you're better off buying used.

Yes...all brands depreciate but in my experience Fuji more so then Canon/Nikon/Leica.

Now that the Sony A7-3 is out with a full frame sensor and fast/accurate auto-focus, the Fuji X-H1 is really nothing special. Its sensor is only APS-C size but the body is larger than the A7-3. The X-H1 auto-focus also trails far behind Sony A7-3.

And the price difference between the two is only $100. Unless you already have a few Fuji lenses, I believe most people will choose Sony A7-3.

Sony's aggressive feature set and pricing also spell bad news for Panasonic and Olympus.

As far as DSLR makers Canon and Nikon, they are also greatly threatened. The DSLR market is relegating to a niche rather than a mainstream market. It declined 22% last year.

You're probably right. I think what helps Nikon and Canon carry on so well is that they have a lot of infrastructure. Lens rentals, repair centers, availability of products, etc.

Plus, Nikon and Canon DSLRs continue to perform exceptionally well when size and sound aren't an issue.

Nevertheless, I think mirrorless is the future.

About your Sony Vs. Fuji opinion: You might be right, but there are advantages to Fuji. One is the APS-C sensor. The processor can read it much faster, resulting in less distortion. Also, Fuji has a significant dominance in jpeg quality. They kick butt in that area.

In conclusion, the overall advantage is with the consumer. We have so many good choices now, and the only thing keeping us from making excellent photos is our own skill. All the major manufacturers offer high-quality tools for making top-level photos.

You said Fuji's bigger size is a con, but there are many photographers who find the Sony to be cramped. Whether that is enough to sway them to an "only APSC" LOL is subjective and debatable. I predict Sony now puts out a larger A7 body and then Sony fans will call the larger size option a great thing.

Specs-wise, the Sony looks great, but I read that the IBIS isn't that impressive. Then the controls remain a huge difference: I love the aperture ring and SS knob, much more than a PSAM dial. I guess there is still a personal taste and feel that these reviews always fail to factor in

The conclusion was spot on, not a great camera for any specific type of shooting, especially in still images. None of the imeages stood out with excellent IQ or sharpness, IMO. It is a very medeocre camera with not so good IQ, especially for the size or cost.

I thought the X-H1 images and especially the video looked great. The only caveat for me on a camera which is video focused are the hard jumps between aperture, shutters speed and ISO levels when shooting video. Those hard jumps can be smoothed out in a firmware update though.

I'm not sure I see the point of this camera body. It's like a X-T series but bigger and more expensive. Fujifilm seems to married to APS-C sensors and Medium format, but the future is with full frame. We've seen the future and it looks a lot like the Sony A7III.

@MarksphotoThe X-H1 is neither smaller nor lighter when you compare it to the current FF 3rd gen A7 and equivalent Sony lenses.Fuji has many things going for it but not does not deliver the same performance at a smaller size and lower weight. It can only be one of it.

The size and eight of the x-h1 is generally better than Sony when paired with G master glass and Fuji glass is amazing. Don’t look at the camera itself. Look at the combo. The x-H1 is also built like a tank.

Sony's GM glass has been oversized, overpriced and generally underwhelming. In contrast, their new 85mm F/1.8 FE is probably the best glass in their entire range, Zony Seiss lenses included, and appropriately priced to boot.

But yes, Fujifilm does have a better range of lenses than Sony, in general. That's a compliment.

Stop, that maybe but the files out of fuji look awefully dull under flourescent light, compared to my Canon images and i found that canon looks better overall with all the technical stuff being better on paper.

@MarksphotoI have tested systems from the 4 big players (Fuji X-T2, Canon 5D4, Nikon D850, Sony A7R3) for at least 2 weeks and up to a year depending on the model. I bet this is a more diverse experience than you ever had.

I know that Canon color science has changed but white balance is only an issue in JPEG and video. Only if you are a fool who fails to even do the most basic post processing work this is an issue.

nope, I shoot RAW, flourescent light in fuji is aweful and can't be corrected as well as Canon files are. I use Capture One. I am sure if you prefer lightroom then it maynot make much difference as photoshop raw converter produces lower quality jpegs from any camera. Your experience as diverse as it may sound maybe your own opinion, everyone here thinks they are an expert :)

That is because Fuji meters differently than Sony. While you were focussing on the top right...I was looking at the light in the background....Fully rendered by the Fuji, and blown out by the Sony. That is why Fuji does what it does. Those who prefer the non blown out rendering will like it.

Sorry guys but you guys seem confused. Cheating ISO and different metering behavior aren't the same thing. Different metering is when the camera, given the same scene, metering mode and lens's aperture, tells different shutter speed or ISO dependent on which mode you're on. While in Max's video the Fuji's footage is clearly darker while using the same setting as the Sony's, that's cheating. That being said, this weird decision of Fuji won't do any favor for Fuji's users except making them feel good about their cameras. The Fuji might look as good or better than another camera at the same ISO by number but in fact, gives only half of the exposure value that the other camera does. And speaking of exposure value, the other camera might just need to lower its ISO by half to get much less noise while still maintain the same ev as the Fuji

Terry...Fuji, like Olympus, use the SOS standard for iso. Nikon and Canon use the REI standard. They are different approaches to iso...which is in fact an arbitrary measure. You seem to be indicating Fuji is cheating...which shows a bit of a lack of undertsanding on your part.

Today I got a chance to handle the X-H1 at a Fujifilm demo event at Henry's in Toronto. I was very impressed with the handling of the camera and actually did not mind at all its larger size. Yes, larger than the X-T2 but no as large as an entry level DSLR. The beefy grip was a blessing and the top plate LCD was not only cool but also very useful. If only it was more affordable (around $2800 CAD with the grip) I would not have hesitated to buy it.... Back to my trusty X-T10 then.

Something to bear in mind if you are worried about the size. The XH1 without its viewfinder is the size of the X-Pro2. Its thicker sure, but that was to be expected by adding IBIS, and it has a bigger grip sure, but it's not significantly larger than the X-Pro which was Fuji's largest body.

the body is not big but if you want to use it to its full potential, it needs to be used with the battery grip. Similar to D850 case. Something that might not be welcomed by many. For me, I like using the battery grip because I like to take portrait oriented shots. I have it in all my cameras.

Any camera you add a battery grip to is larger; I"m talking about the regular camera not being as big as people think. And while the battery grip will give you better performance it is not a necessary thing for the most photography.

what's is that to be curious. its was not there in XT2. they're using the same design with additional measures to handle the heat stress. it's a proven in use architecture. adding a headphone jack might be a small thing for some but from product development point they have consider many things like reliability etc.i'm not telling that it's OK, I'm just explaining it.

I'm a working Stills photographer on film and TV projects, and can tell you--after years with high end Canon cameras enclosed in Sound Blimps to prevent mirror slaps interfering with audio while rolling--that the Fuji xt2 was a game changer for all of us who do this job. The e shutter is essential for silence, obviously, and the Fuji lens system optimized for the bodies present spectacular results.

the xh1 is even more well suited for this particular application.

We all know that these x series cameras are absolutely professional grade, as do our clients.

An obtuse argument if there ever was one. I own both brands and love them both, but to say a Ricoh GR is a professional camera compared to a XT-2 or XH-1 is stretching it by a large margin. Thanks unless if you think taking all your photos within a 2M distance is possible in a film studio.

The man loves the camera for his job. It is a good thing. Why would you disagree with any of it?

i agree , i found the tone and conclusions of the written review dismissive and a bit off the mark .... this camera is a pro camera without compromise for those who earn their living with a camera ... it is the most capable , stills and video camera fuji has ever produced , there is no stills centric fuji camera that outdoes it

i find it large , but for many the handling will be improved in a pro setting

Absolutely silent mechanical shutter is worth $2000 without a camera attached to many photographers. Obviously great colour out of the box and silent shooting are not that important to you (and no electronic silent mode does not compare, it results in rolling shutter in photos with movement).

Splitting hairs people, there is no such thing as a bad camera today. Next time you are at the mall look at all the photos in the windows. I will give you $1000 if you can tell me what kind of camera it is shot with. I will give you another $1000 if you can look at multiple photos and tell me which ones are taken with a crop sensor camera and which ones are taken with FX or even medium format sensors. Point is, you can't. Just buy the system that has the lens you need and the body that is featured the way you want. You think in the "film days" people argued over the dynamic range and auto focus, they just made good photos.

Absolutely true. There are differences in operation and marginally different performance parameters which people are becoming use to picking out which may or may not please them.I shoot weddings with Pentax and prefer crop camera's because the A1 prints are faultless ... i minimise my FF use due to massive file sizes and what really counts is how i compose and the emotion i bring not what brand i shoot.AF is another funny subject, because even in sports i generally shoot AF S not AF C therefore with standard photography skills i can get shots the user of a Nikon can get .... funny old game this nit picking.

And in the old days, we had similar arguments over tri-x and agfapan or d-76 or Rodinal. People have always loved to take sides and to bloviate. (Fine old American slang, meaning to speak loudly, usually from your butt). An awful lot of that on the net.

I'm a very happy Fuji XT-2 user, and over time (it's too early yet) I will definitely upgrade to the X-H1. The reviewer is clearly in favor of the Sony A7 III, but to me there two big wins for Fuji: 1) the film-sim JPEG's are much nicer than Sony, or, for that matter Nikon (which I have used extensively) and 2) the Fuji's are such a joy to use: they inspire me to go out and take pictures, and become a better shooter. Sony's, too me, are just "tools": they get the job done (very capably), but they don't exite and inspire me. Of course, this is very personal and hard to express in cold "86%" figures. Fuji shooters (me included) do tend to get defensive and emotional over their camera's - and there is a reason for that.

Fuji user here wondering if I should switch to Sony. But not sure about a couple of my use cases. One is I use my 18-135 a lot for travel, hiking, outdoors, family shots outside. The Sony 24-240 is a lot heavier and presumably larger and does not appear weather sealed which is critical for me.

Also telephoto for kids sports. I use the 50-230 (350 equivalent), but am looking at the 100-400 as the soccer fields get bigger. Sony’s 70-300 would not give me any more focal length and is much more money and weight and bulk. The Sony 100-400 is somewhat more expensive than the Fuji 100-400.

maybe I’m wrong but FF EV advantage does not seem that relevant outdoors in normal light? iI’s a stop or so faster at the same aperture but that’s not usually a problem in this lighting. I get equivalency for indoors shooting f2.8 crop = f/4 FF but if I’m shooting at higher apertures anyways . . .

In bright light there's usually a DR advantage to a larger (since an APS-C camera at f/2.8 and a full frame camera at f/4.2 will be receiving the same amount of light in total but lower per-area light intensity. Assuming both go to the same base ISO, then there's scope for opening the ff camera up to f2.8 or giving it roughly 1.3EV longer exposure, before it clips).

Other than this, though, when you're light limited and working within the region where both can offer equivalent settings (ie having to stop the ff sensor down to get enough depth-of-field) there's not necessarily any advantage to one over the other in IQ terms.

Equivalence tells you where systems perform similarly, not just where they're different. So if the Fujifilm lenses give the results you want and you wouldn't regularly shoot the Sony wider-open (in equivalent terms), then you wouldn't necessarily see any advantage.

Also on the 100-400 Fuji versus Sony, the Fuji is the same weight as the more expensive Sony but a lot longer effective focal length. With the Sony I barely get more focal length than over the dirt cheap yet pretty decent Fuji 50-230. And cropping on the A73 won’t make up the difference when the A73 and XH-1 are both 24mp, right?

As to DR, never noticed this as a big issue for the use cases I identified

FF sensors gather more total light than S35, just not per square area. A 1" cut out of a FF chip have identical light per square area. (See 7DII chip cut-off of the 5DSR's)

FF sensors perform better in lowlight

-Due to the total more light gathering, keeping everything else constant. Including Resolution (=larger photosites)

-Even when resolution isn't constant: meaning a larger number on FF that scales to the sensor size (7DII 20MP VS 5DS 50MP), the FF one does better in lowlight due to simple oversampling/NR cabapility. 1:1? No they're identical.

-And last but not all there seems to be faster glass for FF than any other format (in equivalent terms). I mean why can't all the manufacturers make fast FF primes and slap a Focal Reducer at the end of the optical formula?

-There's faster pace of technological progress and focus on the FF size sector compared to any smaller or larger sizes.

for 95 percent of shooting there is no meaningful difference between apsc and ff you get cleaner at high iso with full frame , and more dof in apsc , and that about it

f4.2?....f2.8 .... pronounbcements like this has done more to muddle and confuse the average reader here than just about anything ... the ff sensor and apsc sensor get the same light fallling on it .... they are simply a different size and if you consider the light falling per sq mm then the ff one gets 864 of them and the apsc gets less

its like being in a room illuminated by a centrally located bulb and declaring the painting on the wall that is 24x36 inches gets more light than the picture next to it that 24x16 inches .... say that at a party as watch as hilarity ensues.

Hmmmm.... Kind've freaked out by the size of this thing, bigger and heavier than a Sony A7 III FF and substantially larger and heavier than Fuji X-T2. The main attribute of mirrorless, to me, is smaller and lighter and Fuji seems to be going the wrong direction with this design. Others may simply like the fact that it's built like a tank but for me... to big and heavy!

Tried one out yesterday, and also the Sony A7 and A9, the Oly EM1 and the Nikon D500 - I'm looking for an upgrade to my Nikon kit and seriously considering jumping ship for something lighter.

So far, it's between Fuji and Olympus. Sonys were ergonomically poor and the lenses so heavy I may as well stay with Nikon. The Oly fits my hand nicely, the 2x2 control system rocks and the lenses are tack-sharp, light and compact. For the best all-round solution in a pro context, though, the Fuji just pips it. Slightly higher res than Oly, better colorimetry, and access to decent video and those lovely new MK lenses. Plus more client cred than MFT.

For pro work, I reckon the XH, the 16-55 and the 50-140 would be a solid kit, with a couple of primes added later and MKs rented as needed. Lighter than full frame and (slightly) better quality than 4/3. If I was worried about every last ounce, I'd go for the XT2 (the Oly if I didn't have to make a living), but practically there's not much in it.

The X-H1 is not meant as a travel camera or a daily carry with you camera. It's a camera for professional use (great video features, silent mechanical shutter, top display, all size grip). The X-H1 succeeds brilliantly on its own terms.

I just wonder why this is so big with IBIS in it. It may be even bigger than the a7III with the FF sensor in it. I still have the xt1 and not in a rush to upgrade the body, but if XT3 will IBIS then it would be tempting.

Well most "pro" are heavily invested in CaNikon gear and are very much unlikely to go out an buy an A9. What will they do without lenses? And once you add that into the mix you're looking at a large fortune already.

There are those who do Presidential media conferences, concerts, golf tournaments and weddings with strict noise requirements who fully appreciate the silent shooting and great eye focus. Those people have switched in the first week already.

I considered this for my travel camera system. In the end, I decided the EM-1 Mk2 would better suit my needs.

It's all about what works for you personally, not what a faceless reviewer says or what Joe Bloggs in the pub says. Too many people these days seem incapable of evaluating things on their own, relying far too much on the thoughts and opinions of others.

Of course, ask questions and research, but if I read one more plaintive post saying "Which camera should I get to take photos of my cat - help me" I shall probably explode.

In other words, you'll explode if this comments section on this camera review site works as intended for people who search out "camera review" and "camera comparisons". Maybe you should find another website to lower your stress level.

Overall, I believe DPR gave a detailed and fair review on the X-H1. 86% is a great score! Though I have always thought the Silver and Gold labels are silly and are meaningless to me. Why not just give a score? OK, I know that's been debated...back to the X-H1. I'm thoroughly enjoying my X-H1, which I purchased for it's video, sports and wildlife shooting capabilities. The X-H1 is VERY comfortable (with or without the battery grip) paired with my 50-140 and 100-400 lenses. Also, the intent of the X-H1 isn't to be a general, carry-around, and travel camera. That's why I also own the X-E3. I'm still shaking my head at all of the negative feedback on the X-H1 and by many who have yet to handle the X-H1. The bottom line is that Fujifilm will sell a boat-load of X-H1s.

Granted, the X-H1 is a very capable pro grade camera, especially for video shooters, and it should be judged on its own merit.

But the negative response is because we'd like for a Fuji mirrorless with IBIS, but still maintaining the size and weight advantages of a mirrorless. Sony managed to pull it off with their a6500, and even the full frame A7II is smaller and lighter than the X-H1.

Even if it means losing some IBIS performance, I think it's safe to say that most people would prefer having IBIS on the existing X-E, X-T or X-Pro bodies rather than restricting it to a very specific camera.

Like the Pro 2, the X-H1 is too specialized for everyone. Professional shooters who do a lot of video might snap it up. But even so, existing users of the X-T2 may not see IBIS alone as enough reason to upgrade. X-Pro users are in a completely different demographic altogether, and the hybrid viewfinder is of key importance.

What Sony did isn't necessarily applicable since it is a mechanically different IBIS system. All reports say the Fuji's IBIS mechanism is larger than their regular one so currently it isn't possible for it to be in the existing bodies without increasing their sizes; possible in the Pro3 because it is their largest non-IBIS body. Not to H1 size, which was designed to be a lot larger, but somewhere in between.

Thermidor while I am a fan of Canon Panny and Sony cameras, I am not a fan of heat disspation due the diminutive size factor of panasonic and Sony MILC when used in video, the increased size may be to avoid overheat issues which plague small form MILC.

I'm not asking for the level of stabilization of the X-H1 to be replicated across their existing lines. The X-H1 will be its own flagship, and I respect that. I'm just saying people would really like some form of IBIS onto smaller bodies. Even if it's a 3-axis stabilization, or up to 2-3 stops as compared with 5.5, it's still more than good enough for most of us.

@Vanitas Photo

Agree on that aspect. I have a Pro 2, and it gets hot even for stills shooting, so I can't imagine myself shooting 4k on it much. But at the same time, most casual users aren't doing serious video work, so heat isn't as much of a problem as shakiness, which is why some form of IBIS would help them.

The tech in Sony cameras moves forward faster than most peoples opinions - heat's no longer an issue due to the new LSI being much more powerful/efficient (not an issue on my A992 & A7R3). Additionally, the IBIS on my A992 & A7R3 is excellent.

Maybe a little low at 84, but I love my X-H1 and will keep my X-T2. If it missed gold, not by much. Fujifilm is moving in the write direction and they listen to the users. How may companies do that. When APS first came out in digital I waited for FF, but it was only because of wide angle lens. The format is the new light high speed cameras. Look at the Nikon D500 vs the D5. I was a little disappointed by the 84% Silver. This is no means a low score! Bet you the X-H2 is a killer.

It basically means that with full frame you get 1 stop more DR at ISO100 and maybe 0.5-1ev stops more DR at higher ISOs. In practice, the difference is negligble for 99% of photographers, as this will easily outperform all of the FF cameras from 2010.

But the full frame of 2017/8 will outperform the Fuji of 2017/8 for image quality. The question is , do you need this extra image quality and can you appreciate it? In fact , the truth is, except for special cases, apsc delivers enough image quality (and especially when used with good fast prime lenses) into a smaller package vs full frame. And for special cases / professional use, medium format enables more than full frame. apsc is not Fuji, other brands also offer apsc and they are a lot cheaper than Fuji. Fuji pricing for apsc is rather aggressive, based on the fact that the masses will never print large and mostly use internet sharing, Fuji has said that apsc is as good as full frame, this is not true but commerically speaking their strategy works very well because more users will buy it and will never see the difference between aspc and ff at small enlargement. As Ansel Adams said, the best format is the largest you can carry with you.

It's perfectly natural to compare a camera with similarly priced competitors in a summary.

As for one stop not making a difference... I have based buying decisions based on one camera being half a stop better than another. When scrabbling about to get usable files from indoor events it very much pays for itself. And I'm talking about real difference, not cooked raw files and 'waxy' skin tones.

It's the price issue. Xt2 was already an expensive Aps c and the xh1 takes it to another level. It's a very good camera, well balanced but without leading feature. Gh5 for example priced the same, but it has a killer video features so the price is excusable. A7iii is an all-around tool like the xh1, but with better Image quality, DR, battery life and low light capability. If the Fuji was priced $300 less, it would have been much more wanted camera. I am sure soon we will start to see interesting bundles for the xh1.

i often cringe at how poorly the photos are and how inappropriate they seem to express the qualities we look for when judging a cameras iq ... no rhyme or reason no good for judging iso shadow behavior color and other metrics

Giving X-H1 86% SILVER where as X-T2 is 86 GOLD doesn't make any sense whatsoever. X-H1 does everything that X-T2 can but also delivers lot's of new in terms of video. DPREVIEW sorry but this is a joke.

you got me curious,so i read dprs on the scoring logic[.thanks for posting that bill.] from the article: [as regards gold\silver awards]

"These awards are meant to be hard to achieve. If a new model raises the expected performance level for a class of camera, then that's the one you need to match to get a Gold. In other words, simply doing as well as a camera that got a Gold in the past may not be sufficient."

now having read that , &considering the xt2 which got gold . I see the h model as having every bit of goodness,IQ wise, & in terms of performance but the h is the camera that finally makes fuji respectable for video, that in itself is a major achievement & a sign of,not only growth,& added breadth to this models abilities,but also:1} overcoming the last hurdle to mirrorless handling ,big grip[for DSLR users] 2} providing IBIS [a profound advance for fuji bodies ]while the batteries the same, a config. [with added grip] for longer power.

Re-reading the review, it appears DP Review treated the X-H1 as either a camera in a different category than the X-T2 or inserted at the top end of the same category. Comparing the two reviews, it's pretty clear DPR was very impressed with the performance improvements delivered with the X-T2. While they're also impressed with the improved performance of the X-H1, the elevated price tag puts the X-H1 in more direct competition with more accomplished bodies. DPR may not consider the X-H1 to be best-of-the-best but the Silver Award is only given to very good-to-excellent gear. It's hardly a snub and definitely not an insult.

Having briefly played with this camera, Fuji X-H1 is one solid product! Wonderful shutter. Body is bigger than before, but lot sturdier, and not bulky like a FF DSLR.

Compared to X-H1, my Pentax K-1 is boxy. Yes, a Sony FF A9 or A7** would be smaller -- but won't feel this solid. On a travel trip, I will feel more confident that the X-H1 will withstand harsh weather better than my Sony.

I think the penchant for ruggedized/weatherproof cameras built to drive 10-penny nails has gotten extreme. On the Sony forum, we occasionally hear sad stories about cameras dunked in rogue waves and when toppled off a tripod onto granite rocks. The vast majority of us simply don’t treat cameras that way.

I’m sure Fuji makes great cameras and lenses - they’ve been at it for decades, and their TV zoom lenses dominate broadcast TV globally. Like some people hate Apple, some people hate Sony...or find a way to pick them apart. Unfortunately for the nay-sayers, both Apple and Sony have tremendous technologic firepower.

At relatively little more than an APS-C body, the A7III offers great value for money, and Sony’s introduction of fast and affordable 28mm, 50mm and. 85mm lenses illustrates the future of photography. Its weight is pretty comparable to the larger APS-C and MFT bodies, too.

The idea was to highlight some of the strengths of X-H1. I have a Sony A9, so fully understand what you mean -- and I have the Sony 28mm, 50mm macro and 85 lenses. (I am not looking for weatherproofing, but the sturdiness of a camera like X-H1 stands out, compared to Sony FF variety..)

But, staying on the topic at hand, i.e. Fuji X-H1, This DPR review officially concludes rather harshly and confusingly -- by the editors, that is --

"Not so good for": "Anyone looking for the perfect tool for one specific job".

And so I had to point out some things that really stand out, like the Shutter quietness, not to mention the simplicity of Fuji user interface, though some would disagree with me :-)

Yeah before preordering the X-H1, I considered this. But then aside from the A7III body, I then considered the lenses I have over the last few years as a fuji user ---XF 10-24 f4XF 16-55 f2.8XF 23 f1.4XF 35 f1.4XF 56 f1.2XF 50-140 f2.8--- and the thousands additional on top of the A7III I'd have to pay to replace them with FE equivalents. That FE glass is nooooot cheap. If you're starting fresh, the A7III *is* enticing if you're OK with the other high costs or plan on mostly adapting other lens systems to it, (Sony's being one of the best to adapt with.) But with the X lenses I have now, and considering the differences between FF and Crop didn't mean much to me, the X-H1's IBIS and improved handling makes me one happy Fuji user.

Ebrahim, do you think the price of the camera is only based on sensor size? wouldn't the mechanical side, EVF etc. factor into pricing... All this items are not free and they cost more than the sensor itself.the XH1 build quality is better than the A7_III build why don't you say the same about 5D4, 1DX, D5 etc... they're more expensive than A7III and on spec sheet, A7III looks like a bargain compared to these.

Fox: yes of course with any investment into a Fuji lens line up, the XH1 is definitely the way to go.

Vignes: no it's not just sensor size, but it IS a big part of it. And the A7III is not just better in sensor size, even if it was APS-C it would be a hell of a strong competitor to the XH1, but no, it has the best 24mp 35mm sensor ever made. That's something. Image quality. And your claim on build quality, I am not buying it unless I see it tested. They look the same size and overall built to me. And yes it's a huge bargain against the 5DIV (the 1DX/D5 are too different to be mentioned)

XF10-24F4=$1000 | FE16-35F6.1 (doesn't exist, but there is $1250 F4 version equivalent to XF10-24F2.5)XF16-55F2.8=$1200 | FE24-70F4=$1100 (which is equivalent to 16-55F2.5) and FE24-105F4=$1300 (which is equivalent to XF16-70F2.5)XF50-140F2.8=$1600 | FE70-200F4=$1400 (which is equivalent to XF50-140F2.5)and so on ...And you can check the size and weight, there is no advantage in crop optics.

@DarnGoodPhotosYes, Fuji's largest lenses can be larger than their FF equivalents AND even more expensive. Go figure ...Do you realize that small, slow, cheap FF lenses are not very popular, due to the same kind of superstitious silliness? I mean, people want the best and the largest "bazookas" for their big cameras, because the majority are too lazy to learn stuff before making any expensive buying decisions. Probably, 9 out of 10 think that F2.8 itself makes better image quality, no matter what camera you put it on. Demand dictates supply, and photography market is being dumbed down and vandalized by customer ignorance and manufacturer's greed.The problem is that small crop cameras with small lenses cannot compete with the image quality from just a little bigger FF combo. Unless you are not going to appreciate the FF potential anyways, because even MFT is too much for your needs (which is often the case actually). So that it is all the same to you, for your level of tolerance.

I find funny the price comparison between Sony and Fuji lenses based on aperture equivalence. For instance take the Fuji 10-24 f4, should it really be f2.8 to match the FE 16-35 f4 ??? it's an ultra wide angle lens, aperture will matter mostly for exposure and there, when I compare my X-T20 and A7 II at ISO 6400 I don't see any advantage on the FF side (but I can feel the 300g more). Ok, A7r II and later cameras do have one stop advantage in ISO sensitivity but at what cost?

Comparing the 16-55mm 2.8 to FE 24-70 f4 can't be just about price or weight, given the bad review of the FE lens... However I agree when it comes to longer lenses like the 50-140mm f2.8, I bought a cheap Canon 70-200mm instead that works very well on the A7 II. Finally, I agree with some comments above: Fuji has cheap primes that are sharp wide open. Let's take the Fuji 50mm f2 for instance, is there an equivalent that is that sharp, small, light, and cheap (did I mention WR) on Sony's side??

"Fuji 10-24 f4, should it really be f2.8 to match the FE 16-35 f4 ???" - No. It should be F2.5

"when I compare my X-T20 and A7 II at ISO 6400 I don't see any advantage on the FF side" - That's because Fuji are liars and cheaters and their ISO 6400 actually is ISO 3200 and you can clearly see that when you compare histograms on the actual cameras side by side in the same lighting conditions.

"... Fuji 50mm f2 ..." ($450) - Why would you need a "cheap" FF 75F3.1 anyways? Just for a smaller package? Photography isn't about putting small cameras in your pockets.Actually, I can use a much cheaper ($200) FF 50F1.8 on a much higher resolution FF camera and make 75F3.1-like crops (and many other) out of those images, easily. Or keep the original, which is equivalent to XF35F1.2 (you can only dream about at $200). Yes, that camera costs a lot, but it makes up for not having to buy the whole bunch of small, slow, overpriced crop toy lenses.

f2.5 doesn't make any sense as a specification for a zoom lens and again, for a UWA lens aperture is only about bringing more light, as you're not looking for DoF or best bokeh. In that regard f4 is f4, no matter what the sensor behind the lens is.

Sorry, but you're going to have to prove that "I can crop my FF + $200 and get the same IQ than your APS-C $500 lens". To me it's like saying I won't be the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 because this is actually a 80-300mm f5.6 so it won't be better than my Canon 75-300mm 4-5.6. You see what I'm getting at?

Ok, we've heard it many times, Fuji lies, etc... I'll do another test, just for sake of arguing... in the meantime, I'd say I compared some time ago a FF + f2.8 lens and the Sony RX10 with the same ISO, same shutter speed, at f2.8. Despite having a much smaller sensor the scene was brighter on the Sony. The only difference would be the noise at higher ISO. Photography is about results not numbers...

larkhon - f/4 is f/4 regardless of what sensor is behind the lens. However, that only says that each sq mm of both sensors will receive the same amount of light.

So, if we assume you're not always going to print/view images from APS-C cameras 58% smaller than you print and view a full frame image, this information doesn't tell you much.

An f/2.8 APS-C lens (APS-C lens' focal length/2.8) will have roughly the same aperture diameter as the equivalent f/4.2 lens on full frame, since that will have a lens with focal length 1.5x longer (so (APS-C lens's focal length*1.5)/(2.8*1.5)).

As such, both are looking at the same view of the scene through the same sized hole. That hole has different f-numbers on each lens, so the light per sq mm will differ, but the same element in the scene will be made up from the same amount of light (projected over a larger region of the larger sensor).

View both images at the same size and they will look similar in almost every respect.

@richard butler: every time I discuss this I wonder if I use the proper vocabulary or concepts. From what I read, different sensor size, equivalent f-stop on lens, same aperture diameter, same amount of light. But what does it tell us? if I shoot my FF with f/4.2 the scene is darker than the same one shot at f/2.8 on APS-C.

To be honest, appart from the sharpness of the lens itself, I don't see much advantage to take my A7 II + 16-35mm f4 over my Fuji X-T20 + 10-24mm f4. That's why I reacted, one cannot compare lenses/systems solely on f-stop equivalence, that's how you feed the upgrade path myth, FF will always win in the end, if not MF.

"if I shoot my FF with f/4.2 the scene is darker than the same one shot at f/2.8 on APS-C." - That's because you are not using equivalent ISO values (and you should).

"one cannot compare lenses/systems solely on f-stop equivalence" - It's not just "f-stop equivalence". It is overall equivalence in every aspect, which allows you to reproduce an image via a different format camera. Because it is all about the image after all.Crops cannot reproduce FF ISO100 16-35F4, because for that you would need APS-C ISO40 10-24F2.5. Math doesn't change, only some relative and made up numbers change, while the amount of light stays the same. And that's the whole point of equivalence.

of course FF can take shots the crop cameras can't, and that is why I'm keeping the A7 II. But to me it makes less sense to buy only into FF considering the size, weight and price when alternatives are available and good enough for what I'm intending to do with it. For instance I don't see the point in dragging the FF on a city break where I'll be walking all day with my camera. With the weight I gain I can bring a couple more lenses (even bodies) with me...

About ISO-equivalence, I don't think it exists, simply because it is too much dependant on technology. Just compare A7 II and A7 III, it seems that with higher ISO one stop can be gained.I did a quick test yesterday and I'll give you one thing : if I shoot with the same ISO into a light, there seems to be more light (or less DR?) on the FF side. Otherwise I don't see much difference, either noise or brightness (considering exposure is maybe not the correct word) in the scene.

There is no size, weight and price advantage in crop systems. There are only compromises that can make things smaller, for any system. APS-C and FF difference is bigger than F2.8 vs F4. Just stop ignoring it.If there was a huge, heavy and (I imagine) crazy expensive XF16-50F1.8, which could produce images very similar to FF 24-70F2.8, would you still buy one? The fact that there is a FF 24-70F2.8, doesn't mean that you have to use it. Fuji just doesn't have the option, there is no XF16-50F1.8."ISO-equivalence, I don't think it exists" - It's not a matter of opinion. There are no separate equivalences for each and every button on your camera. There's only one equivalence and it works for everything simultaneously. And you can't apply it for just one thing (like focal length) while ignoring the rest.56F1.2 on crop is not equal to FF 85F1.2, because it is equal to FF 85F1.8.56F1.2 ISO400 on crop is not equal to FF 85F1.2 ISO400, because it is equal to FF 85F1.8 ISO1000.

Well, you can believe it if you want, and please try any recent APS-C body with a decent lens. I'm shooting both FF and crop, and M43 for that matter, and my experience is that FF is not the one answer that answers all for me. No, I would not buy a XF 16-50 f1.8 because obviously I could find a better option on the A7 II. But I have however a Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 on my D7200 that is a bit heavy but not really expensive. Of course I could sell all and get a GM lens but do I need it? About equivalence I suggest you read the article made by DPR on the topic. I agree it gives, as a whole, a notion of how the system will perform, but when it comes to ISO it can't work as a rule. FF f4 is roughly APS-C f2.8 all the time, no matter if the camera is from the 1950's. Canon 5D is also FF and will have more noise than recent APS-C cameras and won't do ISO 6400. Therefore this can't be a rule.

It's not a belief, it's logic. Why do you believe that crops improved a lot and FF did not? Makes no sense. They are both getting better and the gap between them isn't any smaller than before. It's your viewing method that's lacking. I have no fetish for using toys, but I can see all the reasons for not using them in the sample images. If you can't see that, then please try using a larger UHD monitor before suggesting that sensor size doesn't matter.If some cameras have better sensor tech, it doesn't break the equivalence principle. Because it is about the amount of light used to create an image. You shouldn't expect similar results from half the amount of light.Yes, I could live with roughly one stop of estimated difference, there's no 100% precision in those things anyways. And one full stop is a lot. Boosting all of my lenses by a stop (compared to APS-C) is enough to justify the price of FF, which, for me, makes the crop system an overpriced scam.

Feels like you're not even reading what I'm saying. From the start I was mentioning the progress made by the A7 III, and in no way am I saying smaller sensors are better than FF. And once more, I agree that top lenses on crop are too expensive. However I don't see that much of a difference between pictures taken by my A7 II and my X-T20 for the use I have, which is mainly landscape photography. And yes, I do have a 32" UHD monitor.And how is half the light on a smaller sensor making that much difference? if we follow this principle to the letter, smartphone sensors wouldn't get any usable light at all. Yet they do, and if you take a picture with the same parameters, let's say 24mm f2.8 1/60s ISO 100, on two different cameras the scene will have as much light (give or take light transmission on the lens, actual ISO, etc...). Of course there will be less noise on the bigger sensor depending again on technology and size of photosites.

I am reading it ... but it doesn't make any sense. The way I see it, crops are not really smaller or lighter, or cheaper, or better ... so why bother? Why would I ever pick the $1300 MFT 40-150F2.8 over $500-$1000 FF 70-300F3.5-5.6? I really don't care about fancy F-numbers or "pro" designations on overpriced toys.A7III made progress, while (possibly) APS-C image quality may never fully surpass the original A7 or even the original 5D."I don't see that much of a difference between pictures taken by my A7 II and my X-T20 for the use I have" - See, that's the problem. You think that nobody needs better cameras than you do.The amount of light has little to do with image brightness. The ISO100 on your smartphone has a cranked up sensitivity equivalent to FF ISO3200. When you zoom in and out images on your monitor, the image brightness doesn't change, but in reality it is impossible to crop into (disperse) a beam of light without losing any light intensity. It's physics, no way around it.

Please just take a look at dpr's studio scene and you'll see that A6500, for instance, is at least on par with the original A7 when it comes to noise. I won't even talk about Fuji since we were all fooled and have underexposed shots... ;)

Why the MFT 40-150 f2.8 over a FF lens? I agree it doesn't make sense if you own both but the Sony 70-300mm is not in the $500-$1000 range. I preferred the 12-100mm f4 IS that allows for a 5s handheld shutter speed at 24mm eq. As with all 'toys' fun is part of the experience...

"You think that nobody needs better cameras than you do." No, that is why I said 'for the use I have'. On the other end you focus on the shots where FF does make a noticeable difference denying any experience others might have.

"The amount of light has little to do with image brightness." exactly, why should I care as long as the end result is the same, the picture is not underexposed? I don't care if it is ISO 1bn as long as two pictures from different cameras look the same

"it is impossible to crop into (disperse) a beam of light without losing any light intensity. " am I to understand that a FF 50mm 1.8 on a crop body should be brighter because there is more light coming through? the hole will have the same size as for FF so I'd rather say the light outside the sensor is lost. Besides, Richard established above that the light per sq mm received is the same, so there shouldn't be any loss.

The a7 sensor underperforms while the a6500 (and X-T20, since it's likely to be essentially the same sensor) performs very well. This will narrow the 1.3EV gap in terms of the difference in total light they get.

Light per unit area is the same at matched exposure but if two sensors have different areas then they get different amounts of total light. And total light available to the sensor, with some correction for how efficient the sensor is, is pretty much the best predictor of noise/IQ.

Though it's worth noting that small sensors tend to be more efficient, since they tend to have more advanced technology than large sensors (which inherit older technologies as the fabrication lines are replaced with finer-scale ones for the next-gen of smartphone sensors). Large sensors can get away with being a bit more wasteful of light.

Technically, image quality isn't quantifiable by just high ISO noise or DR. It's a spectrum of things leading to a higher or lower amount of correct information the image contains. Honestly, talking about high quality at high ISOs is really funny. If you want quality - don't use high ISO, seriously :). Why don't you download the studio RAW files and compare the actual image quality after you remove all the noise.You said "for the use I have" because you think that nobody needs better cameras than you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be arguing. It's just a logical conclusion. I mean, it's good enough for your needs, fine, why should I keep my needs below the capabilities of your favorite camera?"why should I care as long as the end result is the same" - That's the thing, it's not the same. If you want it to be as same as it gets you must use equivalence. Noise not the same, DoF not the same, quality not the same, contrast not the same, price not the same, DR not the same, etc.

"am I to understand that a FF 50mm 1.8 on a crop body should be brighter because there is more light coming through?" - Not sure what you are trying to say here, but it's exactly the opposite. FF 50F1.8 on crop is getting only half the light, because it crops the projection. Therefore the signal must be more amplified to get the correct exposure, which is why crop ISO100 is noisier than FF ISO100. And yes, the light intensity per sq mm is the same, but there is a different amount of different size pixels in each sq mm of let's say 24mp FF and 24mp APS-C. However, that's not even the case. FF wins either because of larger pixels or because there's more of them. It's a win-win situation. And you can use crop lenses on FF a7 series in crop mode. You may use whatever cameras you prefer, but FF is just better.

I'm not trying to convince you to buy my camera. When you talk about logic I'm sure you understand that "not everyone needs to put that kind of money for DoF and, depending on the body and lens, better IQ" is not the same as "nobody needs that".

When you say "It's a spectrum of things leading to a higher or lower amount of correct information the image contains." it doesn't say anything really. It's like, "ok, some crop camera can handle the noise as well as FF, with the same DR, but still any FF must be better because it's logic".

Finally, no, you're wrong, the FF50mm 1.8 on crop body will not crop anything, physically same hole, same light coming through. So no, it's not that the signal is weaker and needs to be more amplified, it's just that the photosites are bigger on the FF and as a consequence there is less noise. Then on A7r II for example they used back illumination to gain a little light and copper wiring to have less noise.

DoF is just a side effect, no need to put money there. You cannot really control the DoF independently. You can control the amount of light and the DoF changes accordingly. So, basically, when the amount of light isn't the same, DoF is different too. Equivalence makes them both the same."some crop camera can handle the noise as well as FF, with the same DR, but still any FF must be better because ..." because it has 2.35 times more of the same. Because most likely this crop camera got pixel density similar to FF camera's pixel density (meaning it's a much higher res FF). Now, if you down-sample the FF image 2.35 times (or whatever number, down to crop's resolution), you get a much refined image quality. Comparing 40mp FF vs 20mp APS-C without scaling down the larger image is silly.

"Finally, no, you're wrong, the FF50mm 1.8 on crop body will not crop anything, physically same hole, same light coming through." - Total nonsense! Half of the light from FF 50F1.8 on a crop camera is coming and going NOWHERE. It doesn't hit the sensor at all. And smaller sensors are called "CROP" sensors BECAUSE they are cropping the image. I see you have absolutely no idea how it actually works. You need to re-learn the whole thing from the beginning. FF can have even smaller pixels than crop sensor, but much much more of them. Which could still produce better image quality. 100mp FF image down-sampled to 24mp would contain much more data than the native 24mp crop image.

Why? you said "FF 50F1.8 on crop is getting only half the light" what comes through the lens isn't changing, it's not the lens that is cropping anything. What you're saying next is only what I said earlier ("I'd rather say the light outside the sensor is lost") only in a more patronizing tone.Even with larger sensors they can't increase the density forever. Why do you think that A. A7s has only 12mpix ? and B. they improved the technology on the newer sensors? A7r II has less noise than A7 II because they changed the technology. And the same technology used on the A7 III with less density gives again less noise.Yes downsampling will make the pictures look better than crop at the same mp but you forgot to mention one advantage of FF which to be able to print larger ;)

A. Because a7S is meant to shoot 4K at native sensor resolution, which happens to be 10-11mp. So perhaps 12 was just close enough, with an acceptable amount of cropping.B. a7III better than a7II, but they both are way better than APS-C.C. The ability to print larger comes from the larger amount of data in the image. If someone decides to make 42mp APS-C camera, then you still won't be able to print as large or as high quality as 42mp FF at ISO100, because (believe it or not) APS-C image would contain much less information than FF image. BECAUSE IT GATHERS LESS LIGHT.D. The amount of light | the light intensity | the exposure | the image brightness - they are all different things. Unfortunately, not in your head.The light intensity = F (aperture)The amount of light = F * sensor area * timeThe exposure = F * sensitivity (ISO) * timeThe image brightness isn't quantifiable at all, because images can be manipulated. You can turn a completely black frame into white frame, no problem.

A 50mm F1.8 will project the same number of photons per sq mm, regardless of what sensor you put it in front of (after all, it has no knowledge of such things).

However, as soon as you relate it to photography (where you're presumably composing a specific framing), it becomes more complex.

Mount a FF 50mm F1.8 on a FF camera and an APS-C camera and, from the same position, you get all the edges cropped off on the APS-C camera, which is useless. Move further back with the APS-C camera (if you can) and you change the perspective.

Ultimately, the larger sensor 'sees' a larger proportion of the imaging circle. And, since you're getting the same number of photons per sq mm, the sensor with more sq mm of surface area gets more photons. This occurs regardless of pixel size and is the main reason larger sensors are able to take cleaner images.

I agree but I still don't understand why larger sensor would have an advantage in any given situation. If I compare two lenses on different sensors, 16-35mm FF and 10-24mm APS-C with the same aperture. Considering that in both cases no light is lost because the lens is made for the sensor behind it, I only see two differences: DoF and sensor performance in terms of sensitivity, dynamic range maybe. Is there anything else?

At its most simple, it's because the same F-number gives the same number of photons per sq mm, so if you can project a larger version of the image onto a larger sensor, while maintaining the same number of photons per sq mm, then you get more photons describing every element in the scene. More light = potential for cleaner images (and, unless your sensors is terrible, then actually cleaner images).

Just to make the maths easier, let's assume your APS-C chip is exactly a 1,5x crop. You set your lens to 18mm on the full frame camera and 12mm on the APS-C camera. Both will see the same view of the scene, if shot from the same location. Set them to the same F-number (let's say F4).

The full frame sensor sees the world through a 4.5mm diameter aperture. Let's say it receives x photons per sq mm (eg you're pointing at a featureless grey sky). It receives x photons * 864mm. The APS-C sensor sees through a 3mm dia aperture. It receives x photons * 384mm (the sensor area).

That example was for a uniformly lit scene but it works similarly well for any real scene. If given a lens with the same angle of view (so both 'see' the same scene), then every element in the scene is recorded over a larger area (larger in proportion to the increased sensor size). Since F-number dictates light per unit area, this means each element is made up from more light (since it takes up a larger area of the sensor).

This explains the better low light performance (at the same F-number, ISO and shutter speed, a larger sensor gets more light. And hence is less noisy). It also helps explain the great dynamic range: if both sensors can tolerate the same number of photons per sq mm before clipping, then the large sensor still records more light about each object, before clipping. This means every tone will be cleaner, so your darkest tone that's distinguishable before being swamped with noise (so long as your sensor isn't contributing too much noise), will be a darker tone. More DR.

And yes, with the larger physical aperture for any given F-number, comes shallower depth-of-field. Which is a double-edged sword.

There may be a limit to how little depth-of-field you can tolerate. Of course, in these situations you could simply stop down until you're using the same aperture diameter as the smaller sensor camera, and get essentially the same result. However you lose much of the benefit of a larger sensor once you have to stop it down into the realm that a smaller sensor camera can match.

Sensor performance is something of a red herring, by the way. Most modern sensors perform fairly similarly (with the latest small sensors usually getting the newest technology, so performing slightly better per sq mm). However, the size differences between most common sensor types are much larger than the difference that technology changes tend to yield. So often last-gen large sensors can to produce better images than the latest tech small sensors, it's just that the difference is smaller than size alone would lead you to expect.

But, broadly speaking, large sensors have less-efficient pixels, not more.

@richard: thanks for taking the time to answer. Sometimes I tend to overlook the fact that more light makes it easier for the bigger sensor to deliver cleaner images. I still think that it depends a lot on which cameras are used and/or compared, and even though there are physical rules camera manufacturers are doing their best to catch up with the bigger sensors. For instance I've had several cameras with the Sony 1" sensors, I used to have RX10 and later bought Mark III and ISO 3200 looks cleaner than before. Also forums are full with people bashing Canon for the DR of their (older) cameras, entry-level DSLR have a wider DR than Canon 6D for instance.What I mean is that there is a base rule that larger sensors will make it easier to deliver the expected IQ, smaller sensors might beat them on some aspects, not all of them obviously, and even if the bigger sensor is better there is a big range of pictures where the disadvantages of the smaller sensor won't matter.

also from what I take from your explanation, if one doesn't need the DoF and is aware of the loss of light resulting in more noise should they really pick the aperture-equivalent lens when comparing two systems? This discussion started more or less with that argument, saying that one needs the "PRO" lenses on APS-C to match the consumer lenses on FF, and considering the cost and weight it's not worth it. Considering that there are many lenses that are exceptionally sharp for the price/weight/size, discarding them because of the aperture equivalence is silly, in my opinion.

Exactly. Equivalence doesn't say you need to use fast/'pro' lenses on APS-C. It says you need to use fast/'pro' lenses on APS-C if you need to match the performance of full frame.

As you say, if you don't want/need shallower DOF and are comfortable with the noise levels you get, there's no reason that you have to match the performance of something else (and accept the size/weight/cost of doing so).

But it does mean, for instance, that you could buy an APS-C camera and then a fast portrait lens, if portraits are the main time you want shallow DOF (ie: it lets you understand when and how to gain most of FF capability, without having to spend FF money on every lens, or carry FF weight with you, all the time).

And yes, equivalence only tells you about potential for image quality. The specific lens characteristics and the specific sensor performance will affect how much of that potential you can get.

As you say, the BSI 1" chips did a good job of catching up with some of the sensors a size bigger. However, you're also right to recognise that this may only 'in some respects.' But unless one sensor maker drops significantly behind, the differences are usually smaller than the differences between sensor sizes ie: 1" - (1EV) - 4/3" - (2/3EV) - APS-C - (1 1/3EV) - FF - (2/3EV) - 44x33 .

Thank you Richard. But, what about making a FF setup to match the APS-C "look"? Because saying that you may not need the shallower (FF) DoF doesn't really justify going APS-C route. Why not just get smaller FF lenses then? You still won't get the FF ISO performance on a crop camera. And (for example) the FF 24-105F4 is equivalent to APS-C 16-70F2.5, which can't be smaller or lighter or cheaper. Each system is a spectrum of things, only FF one is wider, and it covers the APS-C almost entirely (with some minor exceptions like a few hundred grams lighter body). When I was shooting macro on APS-C, I soon realized that its ISO400-640 was the limit for a clean(ish) image. While with FF I could push it almost two stops farther. Not because of the ISO performance alone (it really isn't two stops better, more like one stop), but because of the better bit of everything - ISO, optics (better sharpness, contrast, lower aberrations), crop-ability, hand-hold-ability (perhaps due to larger pixels).

I'm not going to relaunch that whole debate but maybe what one could also consider is that smaller/lighter/cheaper lenses on FF are sometimes also worse in quality than their GM or 'pro' versions. To take an example, FR 24-70mm f4 seems to be quite average, some are even recommending the kit lens over it, considering the price. A Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 will be slightly more expensive, slightly heavier as well, I agree, but it is sharper, weather resistant. FE 24-105mm f4 seems to be better than FE 24-70mm f4 but more expensive than both. GM 24-70mm f2.8 obviously is another better option with the aperture the APS-C can't touch, but the price is much higher.On another topic, I bought a D800 in the meantime. It is not so much a legend that you need to watch your shutter speed and that the 1/focal length rule doesn't always work. It is a little strange though, as smaller sensors packed with pixels should also have the issue, but I find them easier to shoot with the 1/ss rule.

OMG. Why the APS-C (in any form, even with top optics) being worse than FF doesn't bother you at all then? Can't you see that some decent but mediocre optics on FF can beat APS-C no sweat? Putting the most expensive crop lenses against the top FF lenses doesn't make them equal, not even close.There are no issues with FF sensors having pixel densities similar or lower than crops.

It's not that it doesn't bother me, it is just that it is not worse all the time, so when I can use the benefits of lighter gear with excellent performance wide open I'm not really concerned my shots could have been so much better with a FF camera.Whenever I buy a lens for any system I test it against my other systems with lenses covering the same focal length. I've tested a while ago the Sony FE 16-35mm against Fuji 10-24mm and for nature landscape, Sony was a winner. In other cases I couldn't see much difference, at least not in sharpness. These days I'm testing the Fuji 16mm 1.4 against D800+Sigma 24mm 1.4 and that's where I had less keepers on the FF while using the same shutter speed and all. I don't remember having the issue on the A7r at the time, and obviously IBIS is taking care of it on the A7 II.If you can't believe me even though I shoot with both formats (and smaller sensors even) I invite you to take a look at what people have done with that lesser APS-C gear.

"it is not worse all the time" - Actually, it is."I can use the benefits of lighter gear" - Not necessarily and not much lighter."I'm not really concerned my shots could have been so much better with a FF camera" - It's about how much you are paying for it. To get similar results from a crop camera you must buy some ridiculously overpriced toys. The only problem with FF is that there are no super tiny and cheap (F8/F11) crop-equivalent optics, yet. Maybe it wasn't really possible to make those for the DSLR, but for mirrorless the only issue is greed. Big companies would rather sell you overpriced crop optics, than cheap FF alternatives, like 10-24/3.5-4.5 over FF 16-35/5.6-8, or F4 over FF F6.3, which are essentially (proportionally) the same thing. Same size, same weight, same production costs. Why is that XF 35F1.4 equivalent FF lens costs $100-$200 and not $600 like the Fuji? $450 for XF 23F2, while my tiny little 40F2.8 FF pancake is only $150-$180?

You are right, if it's good enough, it's good enough and that's what matters the most. But it's not good enough for everything and everyone. Let's be honest, size matters and it makes a difference (expensive one). Why is that a full stop faster lens deserves the higher price tag and respect for the extra image quality that comes with double the amount light it gathers. But when it comes to FF vs APS-C, then suddenly people forget that it gets over twice as much light from all of the lenses you put on it.It's like stitching. If you combine 3 vertical shots into 1 landscape image and then down-sample it to match the original resolution, you will see that the image quality improves a lot. Because that way you are adding more information to the image, making it 2-2.5 times more (because there are overlapping parts), just like the difference between FF and crop.

The physics-related part can easily be checked by using the 5DSR amd 7DII. Canon basically cut an APS-C part of a FF chip. Identical chip. Identical pixel level DR, noise, texture, but since the 5DSR gets more light, after downsampling to 7DII size, there's at least 1+ stop cleaner noise and 1 stop higher dynamic range.

@ecka84: "it is not worse all the time" - Actually, it is. - at some point you're going to have to proof that with actual pictures.And again you're using strict equivalence to make your point, I'll call it theory, without at any point considering what a system can actually deliver. You said it well, it's all about money and whether or not someone would put the cash on the table for the extra stop, extra resolution, extra weight. One needs to ask themselves what they are using the camera for, if they tend to shoot sports, landscapes or portrait? if they're printing pictures at all, what size? are they shooting at home, when travelling, etc... ?Taking your example, the 40mm is one of a kind, but still on a FF body the total will be what, 900g at best with a 6D vs 500g on a X-E3. If you add a few lenses you can see why people are buying expensive toys. Obviously the gain is not there for all lens, especially if you need the aperture equivalence.

Fory clients nothing tops that FF sensor at 1.2-2.8 DOF. And That's video! I tried and tried pushing the look to a sharper, wide, more composition-oriented look but no... We want that 5DII+50/1.8...

Just pointing out the importance of the FF look (unobtainable shallow DOF with other systems inc. MF) for many, especially in developing countries where technology/knowledge is always a few years behind.

@larkhonI can't make you see the difference. You have to "discover" it by yourself. Perhaps you are not ready for it yet. Sometimes not seeing the problem is the problem. Maybe you can't see the difference between APS-C and MFT either. What's next? MFT vs 1"? Actually, 1" can be perfectly fine for many things. But I'm not going to invest $3000 ... $4000 ... $5000 into such system, because it doesn't deliver an adequate image quality for the price. And, believe it or not, but I feel exactly the same about the APS-C.10 years ago crop systems made a lot more sense, because FF was much more expensive and unaffordable for most people. Now, I see no reason (other than manufacturer's greed and customer's ignorance) why crop toys cost so much. All that "smaller size" mythology is ridiculous. I see lots of people using 16-50F2.8 type of zooms on crop and I feel sorry for them when they take a silly advice to spend $5000 and upgrade to 24-70F2.8 and 70-200F2.8 while keeping their crop cameras.

Why don't you put some equivalent crop vs FF optics side by side and realize that the only difference is that you pay the same or even more for the crop system and get only a few hundred grams less weight (per whole system) and considerably lower image quality, while giving up a big part of FF potential that is unachievable with crop. Like that F1.4/F1.2 look, real clean base ISO and clarity. The glass itself has its limits. You cannot magnify the projection by using smaller sensor without sacrificing quality. F1.2 can't be as good as F1.8 optically, but F1.8 on FF gets equivalently as much light as F1.2 on APS-C. So, that's why ...Stop comparing FF DSLR with APS-C mirrorless. Don't you know there FF mirrorless cameras too?

blind faith again, like I'm suddenly going to look at my A7 II and discover magically that it surpasses my other APS-C cameras in every way...

of course there's a difference, there's a part of marketing in buying a f/1.2 lens on m43 for instance. But I can handhold the E-M1 II + 12-100mm for 3s at least (some say 5s) and get a sharp picture when the FF would produce a blurry picture to match the exposure... Also, is it worth spending $2000 to $3000 for the camera (Sony prices as a base), $2500 for the 16-35mm 2.8, $2000 for the 24-70mm 2.8 and $2500 for the 70-200mm 2.8 when you don't get paid from the 'superior' photos you're taking and you're never making any big prints?

For the record I only talked about DLSR because you brought up the Canon 40mm.

I guess next step is me taking two pictures and you telling me what differences there are and why they matter.

With MFT you don't even have the option of 16-35F2.8 or 24-70F2.8 or 70-200F2.8 equivalent lenses. You think how much would such F1.4 MFT zooms cost and how big and heavy would they be? The answer is - just as big and heavy as these F2.8 FF zooms, but even more expensive.3s ... 5s ... now that's a real blind faith. And for the record, there are plenty of decent FF lenses that don't cost thousands of dollars. Why don't you start from something simple, like 50F1.8 on FF and then try getting the same with MFT.Honestly, why do you people always need the biggest lens compatible with your camera. And how does the biggest lens from one system being smaller than the biggest lenses from other systems make it a better system? But the funniest part is that when they make a truly small system (like the Pentax Q), you don't buy it, because then you start seeing what's the problem with going smaller. I guess we just see things differently, regardless of the difference.

pfff... I just told you buying a f1.2 on m43 doesn't make sense for me and you're telling me "why would you buy the biggest lens available". But to answer your question I think if there is a market for those lens it's because, like you with FF, some people think they should put all their eggs in one basket and that it would too troublesome, or too expensive to buy into another system for a few interesting lenses.

Honestly, pictures like that do not require IBIS :). They require a tripod or something to put your camera on or a flash, so you could shoot with 100% hit rate. But the file numbering and time delays show that you've shot like 3 of each and then picked the least smeared ones. Unfortunately, the 3.2s sample is an obvious fail and the 2.5s is iffy, while the 1s shot is only OK (with a tiny shift visible at 100%, like you said). Just admit it, this is not a solution.If you think that it is impossible to shoot a 2s exposure of a static scene on a FF with IBIS and stuff, then you are wrong. The electronic shutter makes it perfectly possible. Plus the extra mass of a bigger and more comfortable to hold camera adds extra steadiness (inertia).IBIS is more for videos and 1/5 - 1/30 type of exposures for handheld stuff like architecture, street, tourism, on the fly landscaping, etc. Nothing FF couldn't do.

Yup I agree image stabilization isn't exclusive for any format and will probably be all the same on every camera from a cellphone to MF backs in a few years. So yes while amazing, not really a strength for one format over the other.

F1.2 on MFT doesn't make sense just as much as F2.4 or even F2.8 "doesn't" make sense on FF :))For me, those huge FF F2.8 zooms are mostly professional tools for making money, when you just have to get that shot at all costs (including the pain in your back). I have tried some 24-70F2.8, on both crop and FF. And, honestly, for the price, they suck. On APS-C its image quality is really no better than of a decent kit lens. While on FF I'd rather have F4 with more zoom range or a couple of primes, even for occasional event photography. Same with the 70-200F2.8. I'd rather have a 100-400mm instead.With UWA prime a few steps back or forth cannot really affect the landscape framing or perspective. Therefore zooming seems to be a handy feature. But the F2.8 isn't really necessary and I've learned my way with stitching. That 40F2.8 pancake is a wonderful pseudo UWA landscaping lens as well - very sharp, negligible distortions (unlike 35mm), mild aberrations and just the right angle of view.

I agree with most of your findings. Especially the part about UWA prime vs. zoom. I just wonder how I could shoot an UWA without some framing leverage. I can't.

I also agree on f/2.8 zoom lenses, they are just a defacto standard for anyone in the business yet a massive number would MUCH benefit from more reach and smaller size and lower cost of F/4 zooms.

When I stop down the 70-200 from 2.8 to 4 my immediate thought is: really? That's it? Why the hell would I not just buy an f/4! People seem to think f/4 doesn't create enough background separation but I know for a fact they'd be shocked to see it's basically the same. F/4 on FF beyond 135mm is a portrait beast.

@Ebrahim SaadawiExactly. When I want true bokeh, I reach for a fast prime anyways, like 100mm F2 or a fast 50 or even my 28F1.8 (which, surprisingly, is very nice for portraits and all kinds of stuff including close-ups). The 70-200F2.8 kind of gets it at the long end. But then why bother with such expensive "bazooka" zoom, when I can have a twice smaller and 3 times cheaper 200F2.8L prime instead (I mean, if I didn't have my wonderful 150F2.8 Sigma, which is nearly as capable, plus it has extra Macro functionality). But for travels I would most definitely pick the 70-200F4. I just don't travel that much :).

@ecka84 : of course I was expecting the tripod vs IBIS comment. We can change the requirements forever, and obviously on each sides of the discussion, to match the point we're trying to make... Anyways it seems we're just different users with different needs. This E-M1 II + 12-100mm fits the bill for me when I'm travelling and can bring only a small photobag. When on city breaks the Fuji 10-24mm + 16mm 1.4 works well for me. At home I'm using the Sony A7 II or now the D800.

Strangely we agree about the stupid rule among amateurs that says that you need f2.8 on FF otherwise it doesn't make sense to have a FF camera. I think I've had arguments longer than this one trying to justify that f4 lens can be very sharp on FF and are reason enough to own that FF camera instead of buying the APS-C counterpart.

Yes we are different. For me, IBIS cannot handle long exposures (handheld). Well, maybe 1s is the safe limit for some, which is great. But it's not a solution. When I'm shooting close-ups from a tripod, no flash, most often I'm using 10s-15s exposures.I'm sure IBIS works great for all the snap-shooting. Plus you can just use higher ISOs and it's still fine for a cell-phone screen, facebook, instagram, etc.Traveling with a small photo bag is fun. But it's the small bag of small photos that is bothering me :). Believe it or not, my 6D fits in a men's purse (with the 40F2.8). And I can put another 2 or 3 small primes in my lens pouch (one lens pouch, suchlike http://alturaphoto.com/altura-photor-neoprene-pouch-set.html ). So, for me it's not a backpack full of FF DSLR gear, never was. Crops with zooms are too much of a compromise for me and I'd rather take the RX10'IV instead.

I'm actually using the Olympus 12-100mm less and less since I got the RX10 m3. It's really sharp and except at 24mm I don't think there is much difference in IQ.Yes at 100% you can see that IBIS is not the perfect solution but there are things to 'discover' ; during our discussion I was looking at 3s shots I made on holidays, and I noticed that IBIS works very well in the center and you will see the shakes on corners. It works great for fireworks or cars.Even at home I do most of my shooting while walking with my wife and now kid as well, so there are not many occasion when I can take the time to set up a tripod... convenience is a compromise, but a photo is better than no photo at all.I also had the 6D with 40mm (and a 24mm as well) but I replaced it with a zoom lens and that meant I left it at home most of the time... now I'm keeping the A7 II because it's still not too heavy with the 28mm and unfortunately it's lost most of its value on the market...

Well, I still think that 6D is a fantastic camera for the price. Because you can have one with a lens or two for less than a grand. Which makes a lot more sense to me, than a tiny MFT setup.Now I think that I'm going to switch to Sony soon. That new A7III is very attractive and there are some reasonably priced Sony primes ready to replace my Canon ones. Like the 28F2 and 85F1.8. Can't decide if I shouldn't "burn the bridge", keep my cheap EF lenses and get an EF-to-E adapter (and switch back, if something), or ditch Canon entirely and put my money on Sony. I still can't believe Canon messed up so tragically with their 6D Mark II. At least the price went down (as predicted) and now it's only $1600 with $340 worth of free stuff on B&H. Isn't that a sign to abandon the ship? :) Canon doesn't give a damn about enthusiast class of cameras.

the 6D is a camera I bought twice, actually. It is a shame indeed that Canon wasn't more ambitious with its follower. When looking at Nikon or Sony we see there is a place for different types of FF cameras, and in the end the goal is to sell cameras and keep customers.I just sold my EF-E adapter, I only had one Canon lens left, the 70-200mm f4 non-IS, which I'm also selling now. That lens was working well on the A7 II but sometimes had issues focusing in low light. On the 6D it was focusing way faster in the same conditions. Canon 24mm IS worked well with the adapter too, if I remember right. But the FE 28mm was more convenient. Apart from maybe the 85mm f1.8 you mentioned I don't think I'll buy more Sony lenses. I still don't understand why the 50mm 1.8 is twice the price of the Canon equivalent...

I think that FE 50F1.8 is twice the price, because that's Sony's way of doing things. They are always trying to seduce us with attractive pricing on one part of a system and then make their money on the other part (like lenses and accessories). Just like Sony PlayStation being sold at cost price or even lower, but then you have to spend good money on software, movies, accessories and stuff. And I kind of like such an approach.Back in the days I've bought my 7D twice, while waiting for a good deal on 5D2 :)

Well, I'm not really sure about Sony's attractive pricing... The A7 III is still 2299€ here, with the RX line (is there another bridge camera with the price tag of the RX10 m4?) and even their APS-C line any new camera is more expensive than the previous one. I used to hear Sony makes the best and most expensive TVs, then there was the VAIO, more expensive than anything else. Until Apple was popular again and people wouldn't put 2000€ in a PC anymore. But, like printer manufacturers, they wanted to sell the hardware (Playstation) very cheap to make money on software. Yet Microsoft is even more aggressive...Seems to me that they're applying the basic rule: if you have no serious competition, take as much money as possible. If the competition is fierce, sell as much as possible. Also, make your own standard so that people buy only into your products. I have a Sony audio player that is not using standard micro USB and a Sony bluetooth protocol that works only with their headphones...

Is there anything better than the A7III for the same price? - No. I think the closest thing would cost around $3000. The RX10'IV is kind of unique, but I can't really say that its price is too high. It's a premium "compact" camera. It kills the need for a crop system for me. There are cheaper 1" super-zooms like Panasonic FZ2000/FZ2500 or Canon G3X, but they are not on the same level with Sony RX10'IV.About Apple. They are selling BS, just like Fuji. They put a lot of money into this mass hysteria around their brand and fool people into thinking that there are no better products. It's a simple psychological trick. If 9 people in a row say that milk is blue, then the #10 just repeats that same nonsense, because he starts to doubt his own judgement. The problem is that each of those 9 people before him had their own 9 brainwashed lunatics (or paid propagandists) before them. That's how it works. But in reality even the crippled 6D2 takes much better stills than any xTrans APS-C.

well, I find it funny because the way I see it Sony is acting exactly like Apple does. Whenever a new iPhone is released, it's more expensive than the previous one and they keep selling older models at high prices. Some of their features are only for the newer models, even though the hardware would allow it on older models.The high price tag is justified by the unique specs/performance but like the obsession with thinness on Apple side, Sony releases a very fast AF on RX100 V with a price tag above $1000, when that kind of money can buy you a decent camera and a decent lens, with more possibilities.Finally whenever you ask a Macbook owner, they never had an issue with it, they never heard of anyone having an issue with it, and it makes them feel more productive than anyone else. For no reason would they ever switch to a crappy (A)PC(-S) ! ;)

Lens on RX10 m3 is the same as on m4, the latter having a better AF. It's funny that people are saying, about Fujifilm's firmware upgrades, that they should have released a proper camera from the start but when Sony releases a camera with a frustrating AF (I've used at the zoo, it's tough to follow BiF or fast moving animals. AF also gets stuck in the fence...) they fix it and add an even higher price tag, but everyone's happy with it???

Well, RX10'IV is not a DSLR :). What do you expect?"AF gets stuck in the fence" - How is that a flaw? :)If it sells like hot cakes, then why not make it more expensive next time? It's only logical. Canon tried selling 6D2 at $2000, but it didn't go well, for obvious reasons. Demand dictates supply and price.Apple is the "APS-C". They ask more for less in a nice overpriced package, just like Fuji. There are plenty of issues with Macbooks, specially if you try to make it do some actual work for you (which most people don't). They overheat like crazy. Their quality control is worse than ever (faulty LCDs, keyboard problems, etc. and plenty of lawsuits because of that). And if someone haven't heard of anyone having an issue with a Macbook, then he needs to learn how to use google, if that's even possible on a Macbook :), or stop lying. Same goes for crop users saying that FF isn't better or that it isn't better enough to make a difference or that it is much bigger and heavier. Liars :)

I'll hardly call any nifty fifty "the same thing". They're made to be cheap yet Sony is charging almost twice the price of what N and C does. It is overpriced no matter how you look at it. Get over it.

No. Sony's fifty is $20 less than Nikon's. And none of the three FF brands are charging $600 for it. Just look at those soft and waxy Fuji samples, they are lacking contrast and clarity. It's ridiculously overrated.

@ecka84: about the AF stuck in the fence, yes, it's probably asking too much but at least on the E-M1 II the AF locks on the animal, especially if it's moving. No need for a DSLR here but maybe they improved it on RX10 m4, my comment was really for the m3 I own.

You don't have to convince me about Apple. Been there (overheating MBP Pro 2011) done that. Whether or not the quality is actually there is not the point. First, whatever bad experience there are, they are drowned in the mass of blind love. Second, to any regular user their products look easier to use, it's an overall better experience. But again, Sony is doing the same when designing their products. Whenever you want a new feature, or let's say a menu item, buy the more expensive camera. What? you were happy with A7 but the adapted Canon lenses are not working well? buy the A7 II that has the same AF but the option to force PDAF..."Just look at those soft and waxy Fuji samples" stop looking at samples and try a camera.

For me, photography is about the pictures, above everything else. Not about tactile fetish experience that many are suggesting by saying "just try it". Why is it so hard to understand that I don't like the results, specially for the price. If something stands in the way of getting a better image, then it's wrong. Bad/retro ergonomics - wrong. Smaller sensor - wrong. xTrans artifacts - wrong. Inadequate pricing - wrong. Different instead of better - wrong. Cheating on ISO - wrong. Nonsensical propaganda - wrong (and an insult). Why would I want to deal with a company that doesn't respect its customers? (Well, unless GFX price goes down quite a bit :D)I wasn't trying to convince you about Apple. I want you to realize that Apple is an overpriced piece of "crop". I mean the other way around, overpriced crop systems are just like Apple. Not better, but different and much more expensive, just because there's always plenty of simpleminded folks who buy stuff they don't need.

I've been thinking about all the recent rumors and news. What if Canon decides to make a mirrorless medium format camera too. It's a more future-proof format (despite the silly "crop-is-the-new-ff", "crop-is-the-future" nonsense). And the new mount lens system would make a lot more sense, than just a FF remake.

"Why is it so hard to understand that I don't like the results, specially for the price." My point was to know whether the 'result' is something you've experienced and compared or something that has more to do with theory combined with samples and reputation. If photography is about the picture only, the myth here is that a picture is better because it's produced by the better camera. That's exactly the Apple nonsense. It has to be the combination between photographer and camera. Like when you're talking about bad ergonomics, I find it better on the Fuji side and more natural than having a PASM switch for instance.But we were talking about crop vs FF, don't you think that Sony doesn't respect their customers with the prices on APS-C ? same goes for Canikon as well.Finally a blind test with two shots made with equivalent aperture, base iso, 6s exposure:https://s20.postimg.cc/o3jgvs8q5/DSC06361.jpghttps://s20.postimg.cc/qxmm98im5/DSC07400.jpgCan you tell which is FF and why?

I like the darker one better. But this is not a fair test. You can shoot worse pictures with better cameras too. They provide a wider range of possibilities, not only the better ones. Maybe its contrast seems better because it's darker. Maybe its DoF is nicer because you are trying to trick me :) by using wider equivalent aperture on a crop camera. Or maybe they are both crop...Apple nonsense is that they are preaching lies about their products being better or perfect, while for the price they are not. I've heard plenty of stories like - "I tried some $1000 PCs and they were meh ... , but then I bought $5000 Mac and it's so much better". The problem is that nobody is buying $5000 PCs to begin with. It's like saying - "I tried FF and I didn't like it, but then I tried crop and started shooting RAW and it is much better now". Well, it's better because of RAW, just like having better parts in $5000 Mac, than $1000 PC. But $5000 PC (or FF RAW) is even better.

Can you tell the difference between the GFX and FF? Because 44x33 sensor is a clear winner (even Fuji propagandists agree). But the size difference between 44x33 and FF (1.68 times) is much smaller than the difference between FF and APS-C (2.35 times). How do you explain that?Fuji is being disrespectful by preaching crap like "FF isn't better enough to worry about" and then they are trying to fool us with fake ISO numbers.

Funny after all these years people are still repeating this "fake/cheat ISO" FUD.Probably intentionally.

It was a thing because early RAW converters did not interpret the compensation needed encoded in the RAW tag 0x9650.

DPreview's own studio comparison adjust image brightness so the bodies are all in line of each other. And here's a comparison for an old body with its similarly old peers - even brightened in post, it exceeded peers of the same MP and matched those of higher MP.

You really like this soft pre-cooked Fuji mess? Is it even possible to turn off Fuji's destructive noise reduction on RAW files?What early RAW converters? It's not about converters. Look at the histogram. It's just darker than competition at the same ISO numbers. Fuji's own RAW converter to this day shows exactly that. Download the actual files and look for yourself. This "compensation tag" is just more BS to cover the previous BS. Why don't you put two cameras (Fuji vs something) side by side and try getting the same exposure values with the same settings.

@ecka84: well, the darker one is the Sony A7 II + 16-35mm f4 shot at f8, the brighter one is the Sony A5100 + Sigma 19mm f2.8 shot at f5.6. So DoF and FoV were not perfectly matched, there was no trick intended. I just wanted to show that a $500 combination is not world apparts from a $2000+ combination. If anything, looking at the dust on the bottle that is in focus, it looks sharper on the A5100.Also exposure-wise, am I losing so much light on the APS-C camera ? the f-stop difference I have inflicted on the FF is making the scene darker (and I should have used f8.4 to match the APS-C f5.6, if it had been possible). I could have compensated by using ISO 200 on the FF but ISO 100 looks ok on the A5100.So, I'd like to change your "any picture looks better on FF" with "a certain amount of pictures look better on FF".Whenever I get the time I'll do your "Fuji looks darker because they cheat with ISO" test (although it's been debunked so many times now...).

@larkhonI don't see any sharpness issues on the darker image (the glass part of the bottles isn't really in focus), it could be the shallower DoF in play here, because it was shot a bit closer and not at F9 :). I would use FF ISO400 F9 and APS-C ISO160 F5.6 (because in Canon world :) ISO160 is special). And what we should emphasize in such comparison is that zooms on FF can rival primes on APS-C. I see that your 16-35F4 has less CA than 19F2.8.About that price difference. The a5100 is fine, but it's nowhere near the A7II, it doesn't even have an EVF. And putting an expensive F4 zoom at F8 against a cheap prime isn't fair either. Try 10-22F2.5 on 6000 series. Oh, wait, it doesn't exist :). But can you imagine how much would it cost? Which might be the reason why Sony doesn't make such crop lenses. Maybe Sigma could ...Of course it is possible to produce some good enough pictures with crop cameras. That's not the problem. FF files are much nicer to work with and require less editing.

Didn't say there was an issue with the sharpness on FF shot, I just noticed the dust on the red collar that is in focus was more visible on the APS-C side, for instance. And yes, I could have made the shot with the FE 28mm, making the combination less expensive on the FF side but the point was just to see if any random shot would be magically better with FF.I don't think there is much point in talking about A5100's lack of features as you said "For me, photography is about the pictures, above everything else". A6000 is only slightly more expensive and I do not own one. I wanted to compare the cheapest, smallest and lightest APS-C combination I do own, and my standard "go to" combination for FF.Once again, we see that equivalence is an obsession beyond reason: what good would a 10-22f2.5 (or rather 2.6666667 since crop factor is 1.5x) do compared to a 10-22f4? on such a lens we wouldn't care about DoF... compensating for the worse high ISO performance would be the only reason...

Well, it is better. At least for my taste.And Sony crop factor is 1.532x, so it is rather F2.61 (F2.5 is the the closest 1/3 stop). But I'm afraid that the F4 lens isn't exactly F4 either (could be F3.88 or F4.07 or whatever) and even 16-35mm is only an approximation."Good enough" is not a quantity that we can actually compare. There is no upper limit of "good enough". "Too good" is "good enough" as well, just like "better then you might ever need" (where "you" is the keyword). Does "good enough" include "good" and "fine"? What about "meh" or "so-so"? I think $500 for "so-so" is a terrible scam and it should (at least) be "fine". I'd rather have "superb" for $2000 or a bit more, but that's just me. However, it is not an opinion that larger sensors can (and they do) produce higher quality images. It's a fact. I need/want my images to be at least 1 meter wide and excellent (even up close). The APS-C just can't deliver (honestly, it rarely does). Maybe APS-H could be good enough for me.

Well, I guess you must have loved that DPR article about sensor sizes and the notion of good enough... That's the thing, "superb" has no meaning either. Some will think superb means scoring highest MTF values in reviews, they rely on numbers and fact, they don't lie. Some will notice that their gear drastically improved their rate of keepers or the perceived IQ, compared to what they previously had. Some will consider a camera that is the best it could be within a set of specifications shared by its peers (I'd nominate RX10 M3/4, Ricoh GR, maybe A7 III...).And we've been over it a thousand times: larger sensors produce better quality images among the same generation, quality of lens, price range, zoom vs prime, etc... an average lens on FF (and/or old camera) won't 'destroy' a decent combination on APS-C. And if you've printed 1m wide on APS-C (on a recent camera) and it wasn't good enough, ok. I can't convince you if you made your own observation, only if you speak from theory.

I'm afraid that the notion of "good enough" and the notion of "I don't care" both are one and the same notion. Careless people just don't want to to learn anything. They are coming to photography gear testing web site (like DPR) and they don't want to hear facts, but rather woo woo fairy tales about how nothing matters. I think that's stupid. There's no limit for my imagination. I mean, I can imagine what is possible with a better than good enough camera. Why stop on good enough? It's never enough really, or it's only good enough for now. I really don't understand people demanding to stop the evolution of technology. It was the same idiotic notion with computer tech in the 90's. They expected their computers to last for a century or something and were very upset about new chips getting much better too fast.

For me, "superb" means that I can crop it and still have "excellent", "very good" or "good enough" left. Now I have 20mp and it's not much for cropping. However, unlike with APS-C or smaller sensors, with FF even 100% crop can be a decent image. Not just a soft and noisy mess. 5DsR is no better than crop in that regard, but then you don't have to crop that much with its 50mp resolution. Somehow, most people can clearly see that 5DsR at 100% looks considerably (and, for many, unacceptably) worse than 20-30mp FF cameras, but they refuse to believe that 20mp crop looks just as bad. Hypocrites! :)That Ricoh GR is one of the few APS-C cameras I do like very much. It is truly compact, not MFT kind of BS. It got a very sharp wide prime lens, great for travel (at least as a backup). It actually can produce good enough images from what I've seen. Some say that there's bad sample variation, but those images looked almost as sharp as Foveon (another APS-C that I could use). And it's only $600.

I do share your feeling about computer tech. Back in the 90s it really felt like everyone was getting a computer but nobody had a clue how it worked. How many companies did make lots of money on top of people's ignorance?I haven't tried 5DsR for myself but from your input maybe it's best I didn't buy it just for resolution boost. But is it only the sensor that is at fault or also lenses that were not designed with such a density in mind?I remember taking the Ricoh GR to Barcelona and later noticed how good the pictures were, especially in terms of sharpness and distortion. It was also amazing at picking the right exposure, sometimes I would get away with slower speeds than expected... still it wasn't making enough of a difference with my Panasonic 15mm 1.7. This one I was using mostly wide open and never saw it really shine until I used it at f/5.6. Sharpness was on par with Ricoh GR, to my surprise, so I sold that camera, but every now and then I'm looking at used ones...

I was talking about the noise levels and detail at 100%. 5DsR density is fine for most decent primes. But, people are deceiving themselves by mindlessly comparing things at 1:1. You need to downsample the 50mp image if you want to put it against a lower resolution FF camera and do it properly. Honestly, 5DsR is a fantastic camera. With that density you don't need an APS-C for reach.About Ricoh GR (II, actually). I must add that it is surprisingly beautiful, even at 100%, but only at ISO 100-200 :) (IMHO). At ISO 400+ it's just like any regular crop camera with a super sharp lens, where detail start being destroyed by noise anyways.I doubt that Panasonic is just as good. The problem with MFT is that they start at APS-C's ISO 400 levels :). Clearly, all these expensive crop companies are making lots of money on top of people's ignorance. By preaching - "look! it's small! it's compact! and it's the same f-stop like in this white FF bazooka". No shame, no honor, no respect, just greed.

I admit my first encounter with MFT was difficult. I was thinking "how come there is noise in the blue sky at base ISO?". But it was a lot lighter than anything else, cheaper too, and Olympus was offering IBIS. Since then they improved their IQ by a good margin, at least on par with average APS-C but to appeal to pros, they started making monstrous, expensive lenses. I prefer some of the more modest lenses like the Pana 15mm f1.7 or the 45-175mm f4-5.6. I'm not saying they're sharper than anything else, but they're among the best ratio IQ/weight/price you can find. About the 15mm 1.7, I think at its sharpest it's a close call between this and the Ricoh GR (dxomark is saying sharper with a 20mpix sensor, less so with the older sensors, if dxo can be used as reference, mea culpa). Wide open maybe not so much.

The 15F1.7 lens itself might be extremely sharp, but it's the amount of sharp detail that matters. Which in the case of a small and quite noisy sensor isn't really possible (unless you stitch). The way I see it, MFT sensors need much sharper lenses just to be able to produce results similar to FF with mediocre optics at ISO 800(ish). And that's a lot (even too much) to give up on. I may not need the best glass (well, I don't own any), but at least I want to exploit the potential of what I can afford. Tiny MFT sensor seems like a waste of good glass.Maybe I'm biased, but to my eyes, MFT cameras always produce such distinctive type of grain. I'm not sure what it is, It seems like some sort of weird sharpening going on there. It's like there are no individual pixels in MFT pictures at all. I mean, it seems like the smallest detail are always represented by a group pixels, never by a single one. And it leads to this "cleaner" look with detail deficiency. GR looks so much better.

Any APS-C or even FF jumping from a D500 will NOT be impressive. It's a beast really. AF is insane along with burst rate, ergonomics are the best out there, Nikon lenses are numerous and cheap, esoecially if you go manual, If it had Sony's video features (just full sensor readout really) and good video AF, it'd be my "perfect camera".

OK so, it's *kinda* big and kinda heavy compared to many other mirrorless bodies. But I don't understand for the life of me why this is a bad thing? Fuji offers a wide range of camera body sizes all using X-Mount, and this camera is a new addition to the line up that goes one level higher to DSLR-ish sized, for arguably better handling for its more video-centric feature set. I can't be the only person who appreciates having a bigger, more grippy Fuji camera on the market, am I? A few of the X-Series lenses can get a tad on the large size (the 16-55 2.8) and it feels right at home on this body for me. If I really want, I could still pick up a smaller X-E2 or 3 too, and still use all my lenses if I know video isn't a concern that day. For now, as a 6'5" dude with big hands, I deeply appreciate having this option in size. Cams the size of the A6500 just cramp my hand up.

Also it's still smaller/lighter than an actual DSLR (like 7D series,) and (roughly) the same size/weight as the GH5/S.

you're not to only one, there are many whom see the XH1 as a good option.GH5/S is alright to be big because it's video capability is huge and it's the best as DPR and others say. so Pana has the rights to make bigger m43 sensor based camera but Fuji don't have the rights to do so.

Not bad, per se, but definitely a calculated departure from a product strategy that's been very successful for Fujifilm since the 2010 introduction of the X-100.

I realize there are a number of current Fuji shooters who eagerly placed pre-orders for the X-H1 and are now enjoying doing photography the camera. To them I say, "Rock on! Enjoy your new kit." But let's step back and look objectively at where the X-H1 competes in the wider interchangeable lens camera market.

Setting aside current Fuji owners, fill in the blank: "You're likely to switch to/add the X-H1, because the X-H1 offers (blank) that your current camera or another competing camera doesn't." I would argue the X-H1 offers little in the way of compelling design and specs to the photographer who currently shoots with anything other than Fuji.

Let's check back in a year from now to see how well the X-H1 has faired on the open market. If it's a sales leader, I'll need the first to step up and admit I was wrong.

You have to realize that this is not 5D size, not 6D, not 7D, not 80D, not 77D, this is approximately 800D size, a rebel camera is a small camera last time I heard before they started miniturizing buttons and enlarging sensors :)

Yep they're pretty small. Bordering on being too small in fact. I have an X pro 2 which is a nice size camera, I had a X-T1 but it was a bit on the small side. I think this X-H1 with a grip you can hold onto will be perfect. The Olympus Em1 series are beautiful cameras but way too small for me. The buttons are hard to tricky to access etc. The Sony A7/9 series obviously have excellent sensors but ergonomically they're a bit of a pain to handle. Everything is relative.

It is a choice. Sensor size is not important for some. Ergonomy, AF, dependability, real weather sealing, good touch screen, smaller and lighter lenses, better IS may be more important for many people.

BS? Ecka84, can you actually discuss like decent normal human beings?I was talking in general, not specific to Fuji system. FF sensor is nice but usually comes with heavy and expensive zoom lenses. Sensor is not always the primary variable when choosing a camera system. There are people happy with RX10 IV, m43, and even Nikon 1 system.

It's been discussed hundreds of times already and yet every time someone brings it up again. Repeating the same old BS endlessly won't make it true.FF sensor doesn't come with heavy lenses. You have to buy them separately :). And my point is that you don't have to buy the largest, the heaviest and the most expensive optics compatible with your camera. And comparing the largest one from one system vs the largest one from another system, is a silly comparison. Same F-numbers don't make them equal. F4 on FF beats F2.8 on Fuji, period. So, please, learn the equivalence principle and stop the BS.

Equivalence can be made either on shallow DOF or on exposure. F-number is F-number. Frankly, you even get more DR on Fuji X-T2 with 56/1.2 at ISO200 f/1.2, 1/500s, than with Sony A7r3 with 85/1.8 at ISO 500, f/2, 1/500s. BOOM! Facts!

Or you can match the DR and get faster shutter speed on Fuji. BOOMBOOM! More facts!

Or you can turn it around and consider that what do you need to carry to shoot portraits with at least DOF of 25cm? Or a landscape with 24mm equivalent FOV and DOF of infinity? BOOMBOOMBOOM! Even more facts!

I think buying a Sony, or at least licking the Sony spec sheet really makes people stupid.

Sorry for the rest of you. That level ignorance just requires special kind of attention.

@umeetNO. Equivalence takes everything into account.First of all, Fuji ISO is a joke. You can't really tell what number relates to what EV. Because they cheat, their actual ISO value is lower than they are telling you, up to full stop at high ISOs. You'd probably end up with 56F1.2 1/500s ISO200 vs FF 85F1.8 1/500s ISO400 easily, while trying to match the histogram side by side.Equivalence makes everything equal, because everything is connected to the amount of light - DoF, noise, lens size, etc. So, there is no extra DR in Fuji. No free lunch. No xTrans magic. NO boom. Only BS fairy tales.

@taktak91So, is it OK if your employer pays you only half of the amount you've been promised for the job? While telling you stories like "money doesn't matter, it's not the most important factor, blah, blah, blah ...". Because APS-C is more than twice smaller than FF and it shows in the actual images. Unless they are both too much for you, which suggests a question - Why are you arguing if you don't care to see the difference?

OK. I give you a challenge. You will need to go take following pictures:1) A close portrait, native ISO, flash lighting, DOF from nose tip to the ears2) A 20mm FOV f/16 landscape, native ISO3) A f/2.8 shot of a running kid, as fast shutter speed as possible.

Now, if made "equivalent" kits, you will 1) get much lighter gear bag with APS-C / MFT than FF2) get (in general) cheaper gear with APS-C / MFT than FF3) get slightly better 1:1 pixel level image quality in terms of noise on FF, if you stick to same megapixel amount.

These are facts, not fairy tales, facts. 1) and 3) are dictated by laws of physics and also by the advancements in sensor technologies, which have dragged MFT and APS-C sensors very close to FF sensors (as FF sensors have since D800 pretty much hit their physical limits, with BSI + dual gain giving a slight boost).

Only where FF will be clearly beneficial is that it will be 1-1.5 steps further usable on high ISOs than APS-C, and allow higher megapixel counts.

You still don't get it ... you are hopeless. FF is not larger or more expensive. Actually, FF lenses are often cheaper than APS-C or MFT equivalent.It is impossible to reproduce the image using only half the amount of light (half the amount of data). "Base" ISO doesn't mean equal ISO. FF ISO 100 is equivalent to MFT ISO 25 and APS-C ISO 40. Do they even have it? - No. Game over. Crops do not have ISOs equivalent to FF ISO 100 or ISO 64.Your theories really are fairy tales. Laws of physics are not compatible with such delusional nonsense. Saying that MFT are getting closer to FF is just like saying that stitching 4 MFT images together doesn't increase image quality, which would be very silly. Smaller sensors hit their physical limits at the same exact pixel density as FF. Only FF gets much more pixels at the same pixels density and gathers much more information for producing higher quality images. You can't win this. Size matters.

I don't understand this release. Fuji is seemingly trying to compete with the likes of Sony on their turf which isn't Fuji's strength.

What makes Fuji different is that they have really focused on making a quality crop sensor camera that is both portable and easy to use and produces 'trendy' looking images with their 'filters'. They are also riding the vintage wave of marketing.

Their jpg engine plus auto functionality makes them great for the smartphone set and their ergonomics with analog-like dials appeals to the old-school enthusiasts.

With this release, they are getting out of their niche by offering a large and bulky camera that offers zero innovation and its tech is actually quite dated now. They even add a screen to the top, the likes of which has been on DSLRs for years. It just doesn't fit the vintage aesthetics of Fuji.

The only people that I see this attracting are Fuji users who want better video capabilities. So, yeah it's not going to sell very well.

Fuji can't risk getting left behind in the video market because professionals are being led to provide both services. Consumers tend to lack the ability to recognise that there may be needs other than their own, so "enthusiasts" are likely to be mystified by the purpose of this camera. Those who want and need to shoot video without having to lug two or more cameras around, using Fuji's brilliant and affordable glass with superior colour science baked into the video file - these people understand the value proposition perfectly.

Sorry but Fuji's glass isn't brilliant at least compared to everyone elses. I don't understand where this even comes from, except possibly due to the lenses looking like they are well made.

As far as their colors, they are just filters and only work with jpegs. Pros are going to apply their own post-processing to both their images and video. All of the Fuji filters can be applied to any raw file from any brand.

No one outside of paid sponsors are going to convert to Fuji for their professional video work. The capabilities of this camera in that area are behind Sony and Panasonic.

So while I agree that Fuji released this camera in order to offer a true hybrid, its not for the pros but for monied enthusiasts who are already invested in the Fuji ecosystem.

The X-H1 is likely a no-brainer for Fuji X photographers needing to provide video services on top of their stills expertise. It's obviously an extremely competent stills camera, and one that produces high-quality B roll video, cinematic footage with great colour and 120fps HD at an affordable price.

Fuji's glass is brilliant at the price. Despite your opinion, some believe it's the best value optics overall.

Commenting that Fuji's colours "are just filters and only work with jpegs" illustrates ignorance on how important those baked in colours are for those who need to supply quality video to clients quickly, without enlisting the help of a professional video colourist. Ditto for adding RAW to a comment around video.

Panasonic is excellent and offers major video quality benefits, but bad video AF and smaller MFT sensors that produce their best cinematic footage only with adaptors. Sony is compelling, but some hate their menus and colour science.

If you compare apples to apples, Fuji glass is not cheaper. In the key prime focal lengths, you actually have to buy 2 lenses to get the capabilities of 1 lens from other brands. Their F2 primes are sharp and error-free (partly due to in-camera processing) but lack character and can only produce a DoF equivalent to F2.8. Their faster primes give you better DoF control and add character but have noticeably slower AF capability, are heavy, and loud. Nikon, Canon, Sony all offer single lens options that not only combine everything into 1 lens, they also arguably produce better IQ and often times are cheaper and lighter.

As far as color, they are filters and work the same as applying a filter in LR or IG. It's all computational photography its just done in camera. You can adjust every mid to high-end camera to do this in-camera and I personally prefer this route as opposed to allowing a camera to dictate my color choices through suggestion.

Stick to apples, indeed. Nikon doesn't have a horse in the mirrorless race. Canon has some excellent offerings but has yet to grain any real traction in the mirrorless market. Sony is excellent, but if a user does have a complaint, it's usually around the cost of their lenses.

Personally, I'd not comment on the relative perceived aesthetics of one lens over another. That evaluation tends to be subjective. Fuji was good enough to make lenses for Hasselblad, and I'd gather that counts for a bit more than a personal opinion.

The MFT offerings are strong on price and performance - but not everyone wants the smaller sensor.

For photographers who also need to shoot video, Fuji brings brilliant lenses for the price to an APSC mirrorless package, with good enough autofocus. They have taken the jpg colour science that is so appreciated by their users and provided it for video too - without having to dick around with camera colour settings.

Yeah, the X-H1 is a nice enough camera. But it’s a jack of all trades, master of none situation. Using what is now dated tech, it’s neither here nor there, hence that silver rating. Bring on the X-T3! Fuji needs it ASAP IMO.

alright, fuji brings out XT3 but what if it doesn't have IBIS and ergo of XH1. is that alright because I'm pretty sure, when they do so, people will criticise them for not including these. a bulky XT line to accomodate the IBIS and manageable heat stress is not going to be well received either. That's the reason the XH line is created.There will be a XT3, wait for it... XH line is not for you.

I have other cameras that have IBIS, and it's wonderful, of course. Which also happens to be one of the reasons I was so impressed with the OIS in the X-mount lenses that I have. But I understand that IBIS requires more room in the camera body, and if I had to trade, I'd prefer to keep the current X-T body shape and size.

My wish list for the X-T3 would include better battery life (I hesitate to buy the battery grip because I don't want the increased weight and size), even better autofocus, tonal and color control customization similar to the Olympus graphical implementation, touchscreen for menu and autofocus point selection. And since I can't seem to find the setting to cause it, auto rotation of images on playback. Auto Rotate Displays is ON, but it doesn't have any effect. Any advise appreciated.

I REALLY like all of the direct control dials, Nikon-F jokes and nostalgia aside. Adding the top panel LCD on the X-H in place of the EC dial seemed redundant to me since all of that information can be on the two existing displays (LCD and viewfinder). I really don't need a third, though I know some people like it. Ironically, one of the absolute best ideas I've seen in the last decade was Sony's implementation of the LCD on the R1. It fully articulated to lay flat on the top of the camera top plate. Sheer genius. Allowed shooting from waist level or ground level and provided that same top panel information display functionality. I still have that camera.

No, my original remark assumes that Fuji has limited resources to develop two camera lines at the same time. I anxiously await the X-T3 and I was hoping this release was it.

Then there's also the possible abandonment of the X-T line, but then again, I don't expect any camera line will last more than a decade these days :-(

checks almost boxes except some important ones * battery life * no in body stacking probably due to X-trans ( I know, a little "complainy" * supposedly not too good with focus accuracy * tilt screen is 2 axis

I don't know why people make such a big deal about the 15-minute time limit. These hybrid cameras are not cinematic level video cameras. They are still cameras that include some video bells and whistles to make them seem like you're getting more for your money.

You can make professional level videos using them but they don't have anything near the capability of a true dedicated pro-grade video camera.

Also, the vast majority of videographers who choose to buy a hybrid camera are mostly going to use these to record short clips and then stitch them together in post. Even at the cinematic level, it's rare to see a single shot last longer than a few minutes.

Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! In this week's episode of DPReview TV, Chris and Jordan go to the zoo with the Fujifilm X-H1. Watch as they photograph lemurs, red pandas and maybe even a Tyrannosaur while putting this camera to the test.

Fujifilm will be releasing firmware updates for six cameras in April in May. The cameras include the GFX 50S, X-H1, X-T2, X-Pro2, X-E3 and X100F, with the X-T2 gaining the most features, such as focus bracketing, high speed video recording and improved phase detect AF performance.

Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Professional commercial photographer Moe Lauchert shares an incredible gallery of film photographs he captured on Ilford HP5 with a Nikonos 5 while serving as a diver at NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory in Houston, Texas.

We've been shooting with a beta version of the Sony a9's upcoming firmware 5.0. While there's much more analysis to come, we can say it makes for a dead simple AF tracking user experience. Take a look at some of our samples.

The Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4 is a compact and light-weight lens for full-frame Canon and Nikon DSLRs. We took it on grand tour of Seattle's top tourist spots and found it makes a pleasant, albeit wide, walking around lens.

Fujifilm has announced its new GF 100-200mm F5.6 R LM OIS WR tele-zoom lens. The lens, equivalent to 79-158mm when mounted on a GFX camera, has image stabilization (with a claimed 5 stops of shake reduction), a linear AF motor and weather-sealing.

Amongst all of the camera news yesterday, Sony also announced its new Imaging Edge mobile app, which replaces PlayMemories Mobile. Three desktop applications have also been updated, adding support for time-lapse movie creation.

Our intrepid team is in San Diego, for the launch of the new Sony a6400. In this short overview video, Carey, Chris and Jordan talk through the main specifications of the new camera, and what they might mean for photographers and videographers.

The Sony a6400 is the company's new midrange mirrorless camera, whose standout features include an advanced autofocus system, flip-up touchscreen LCD and oversampled 4K footage with Log support. Learn more as we go hands-on with the a6400.

Sony has announced major firmware updates for the a7R III, a7 III and a9. All three cameras gain improved Eye-AF, the ability to recognize and focus on animals' eyes, and timelapse capability. The a9 gets more sophisticated subject tracking.